Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Academic Library Services

Introduction

In the ‘Web 1.0 and Academic Library Services’ post,  Web 1.0 technologies  were found to be the industry standard for information management within the majority of Library organisations, and that many current service developments respond to changes in user expectations that have occurred due to online experiences elsewhere on the World Wide Web (Web) (Allison, 2010). With the advent of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, practices have become increasingly diversified, with the implementation of these technologies varying hugely between different institutions. The developments that Web 2.0 and 3.0 pose hold a wide range of implications for how the various information activities and services of an academic library are realised and delivered to users. The scope of this post will firstly be to introduce the terms Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, and from this basis to contextualise current and potential applications of these technologies and practices in the delivery of user services by academic libraries.

Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 is a contested term with some, including Berners-Lee, questioning whether it is really anything new or merely jargon (IBM, 2006). Web 2.0 has, however, taken hold as a term due to the rapid expansion in users of sites such as Weblogs, Wikis, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, which have all been described by this label in order to define them as something new and different to what preceded them. Comparing the features of these sites with those that typified the Web 1.0 phase of the Web, suggests that the predominant difference is that Web 2.0 has realised a development from the Web as essentially a Read Only resource, to a Read/Write social information space (TechTarget Inc, 2008). Several factors coming together may be seen to contribute to this development: the decreasing price of associated hardware (computers, laptops, web-enabled mobile devices, digital cameras), improving network connections, and the development of new user interfaces by businesses such as Facebook, which have decreased the technical know how required to publish content to the Web. The result of this has been that the entry barriers in terms of costs and knowledge have been sufficiently lowered to enable a far greater number of participants to contribute to the development of web content.

Web 3.0.

Web 3.0 also has several definitions. The understanding that will be taken in this post is that of the Semantic Web, as this marks a technological development in how digital resources are represented, organised, and processed. The Semantic Web is the Web but with computer understandable meaning built in (Berners-Lee, 2000, pp.191-215). It is proposed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that meaning in this sense can be achieved through the development of three technologies:

• The Resource Description Framework (RDF): technologies based on a triple of terms that enable a resource to be unambiguously defined. RDF triples consist of a predicate describing the relationship between a subject and an object (W3C, 2004).
• RDF Schema (RDFS): a language that can be used to take the RDF statements for a particular domain and produce a classification system or taxonomy that is consistent with RDF and defines the basic relationships between the statements (W3C, 2000).
• Web Ontology Language (OWL): provides the rules by which logical operators and inferences can be added to a taxonomy to allow data within that domain to be meaningfully processed (W3C, 2009).

Information published in this way can be understood by computers and therefore be processed using a reasoning engine (a technology capable of understanding these languages and rules, and that allows the outcomes to be searched and queried) to discover new relationships between the set of resources within the domain (W3C, 2010).
The general significance of Web 3.0 technologies is that implementation would enable the development of the Web from being a structure that enables you to access and manage information, to the accessing and management of knowledge structures that are capable of delivering search results with an exceptional level of accuracy, and additionally have the potential to suggest new facts and insights that are emergent in a thorough analysis of the relationships between resources.

Current practices in academic libraries.

The adoption of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies in delivering user services in academic libraries is not particularly consistent or standardised between different institutions. Library Websites are one place where signs of the influence of Web 2.0 are often most visible. Many academic library websites now show signs of being, more or less, complex mashup pages. Mashups utilise Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to gain access to Web Services published by sites such as Weblogs, Google Maps and Facebook, to draw data and/or functionality from these other websites through to be assembled in a new way within the Library Homepage (Engard, 2009, pp.19-33). The additional functionality enables libraries to offer users a richer experience but also offers the Library the opportunity to exploit some of the attributes of Web 2.0 technology to improve the efficiency with which they are able to publish and up-date information about their services. A feed from a Weblog on to the library’s homepage enables content to be uploaded to the webpage extremely easily and quickly without being referred out of the department for technical support. While including features from social media sites such as a ‘Like this page’ function enables users to save the link to the homepage and share it with colleagues in their social network giving the Library additional visibility to users and potential users. Libraries can further utilise the effects of this new visibility by complementing it with a presence within the social network itself, giving users additional choice in how they access information and resources from the Library.

Further potentials of Web 2.0 for academic libraries.

An implicit feature of Web 2.0, which Web 1.0 did not necessarily offer, is user centred online environments and services, which the users, through participation become invested in the success of (O’Reilly, 2005). What could be achieved for user services within academic libraries through utilising Web 2.0 technologies is the delivery of user services that keep users engaging with the Library, its services and resources, in a relationship that is strengthened through an increased level of interactivity (Engard, 2009, pp.81-84). Areas where Web 2.0 is beginning to be applied in Libraries but practice is not yet wide spread include:

• Reclaiming the Library Catalogue: Online Publicly Accessible Catalogues (OPACs) have long been a source of frustration for both end users and Library Staff, and it is a situation that escalates as the pace of technological change grows rapidly faster, yet fails to be reflected in the development of new catalogue interfaces (Engard, 2009, pp.130-131). The very static nature of library catalogues increasingly risk alienating users accustomed to highly personalised and interactive information spaces (Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas, 2009). Mashups offer a means of introducing information and functionality from social bookmarking sites, publishers, retailers, and other library catalogues, that enable libraries to offer their users a richer experience, and gives users the opportunity to interact with (review and rate resources), and to share this across a range of social media (Engard, 2009, pp111-178).
• Ask a Librarian: Instant and/or direct messaging is a widely used internet service which is often integrated into market leading Web 2.0 applications. Utilising such a service provides a platform for offering user support which integrates into their workflow at their personal/ workplace computer (Bradley, 2007, pp.133-149). As digital technologies increase the range of library resources that are accessible in decentralised locations, it seems advisable that libraries look to ways of also decentralising their user services in order to better support users at these locations.
• Information Literacy and Web 2.0: One of the major reservations expressed by librarians arising from Web 2.0 has been whether users understand the implications of the source on the validity and reliability of information, and how to use sources correctly to support their activities. However, it may be suggested that this is in itself an opportunity for Library and Information Professionals to deploy their skills in educating users to negotiate the increasingly complex information environment of today. In addition to this while Web 2.0 technologies can be seen as a contributing factor to the problem, innovative uses of RSS feeds, podcasting, YouTube broadcasting, and social bookmarking are starting to place it as a potential platform for delivering Information Literacy Training (Godwin and Parker, 2008), which has been observed as an increasingly prominent aspect of the academic library's activities in the ‘Digital Age’ (Robinson, 2010).

Problematic aspects of Web 2.0

Information and digital literacy are common concerns that arise in relation to Web 2.0, in the academic context and in society more generally. The Web, whether it be 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 is fundamentally altering people’s information behaviours/practices, and ensuring that users are equipped with the skills to successfully navigate and judiciously utilise resources is an important role for librarians and information professionals in the rapidly changing digital landscape (Martin and Madigan, 2006).

Additionally, institutions may have service security concerns over the implementation of Web 2.0 in its service framework. The ‘web as platform’ (O’Reilly, 2005) is in some aspects a major strength to Web 2.0 technologies: the software being consumed existing externally to the institution on a web server makes the implementation costs of utilising Web 2.0 tools very low (Bradley, 2007, p.191); this facilitates experimentation and review, leading to the adoption of appropriate and valuable solutions for delivering information that satisfies users’ information needs and customer service expectations (Godwin and Parker, 2008, p.15). Conversely though, once a technology is in use and shown to be valuable the fact that the technology does not reside locally can become a disadvantage to the institution as the site may change functionality, or be withdrawn altogether, with a detrimental effect on the libraries ability to deliver the services that users have come to expect (Engard, 2009, pp.70-71).

Where is Web 3.0?

The discussion in this post has been dominated by Web 2.0; this is largely due to the fact that although not particularly consistently implemented it is far more visible than Web 3.0 in the current information environment. Web 3.0 as Semantic Web in fact pre-dates Web 2.0 in conception, however, in comparison there has been very limited uptake of the technologies outlined in the definition above. A major reason for this is the high cost of putting human knowledge and expertise back into the Web to create the metadata required, combined with the lack of a perceived need for change. However, in closed domains, for example a library collection, it could be argued that the implementation of Web 3.0 technologies is more feasible as a large amount of metadata already exists (Chowdhury and Chowdhury, 2007, pp.197-212), and the process of converting this into RDFs could therefore be automated. One potential of Web 3.0 in the context of user services in academic libraries is the power of the system to produce very accurate searches focused within one domain, delivering far more efficient integrated searches and analysis of resources and therefore improved user experience.

Conclusion

Just as the advent of the Web resulted in the development of the terms ‘digital libraries’ and ‘hybrid/complex libraries’ (Chowdhury and Chowdhury, 2003, and Brophy, 2001), Web 2.0 has given rise to the term ‘Library 2.0’ (Bradley, 2007, pp.192-196). How long these terms survive and at what point the new practices these terms have been adopted to denote simply become part of what libraries do, has not yet become apparent. However, the fact that these evolving standards and technologies have prompted changes in the terminology of the discipline does suggest that there is potentially more at stake than a ‘pimped up’ website or a presence in social networking sites. Utilising Web 2.0 enables libraries to deliver services in a newly flexible way which accommodates changing user needs and expectations (Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas, 2009, pp.164-171). Whether at a future stage we also see the term ‘Library 3.0’ remains to be seen; however, the fact that a vast quantity of metadata is already associated to Library resources and Web 3.0 technologies do already exist with the capacity to actively utilise it, does suggest definite potential. In reflecting on Web technologies across the three phases 1.0-3.0, we can observe that being able to maintain relevance to users in supporting and informing their information practices in a digital online environment is becoming increasingly prominent in the professional practices of library and information professionals, and could yet prove to be fundamental to the services that academic libraries seek to provide moving forward.

References

Allison, V. (2010) ‘Web 1.0 and Academic Library Services.’ Verity Allison. 31 October. Available at: http://verityallison.blogspot.com/ (Accessed 12 December 2010).


Berners-Lee, T. (2000) Weaving the Web; the past, present and future of the World Wide Web. London: Texere publishing.

Bradley, P. (2007) How to use Web 2.0 in your library. London: Facet publishing.

Chowdhury, G. and Chowdhury, S. (2003) Introduction to digital libraries. London: Facet publishing.

Chowdhury, G. and Chowdhury, S. (2007) Organizing information; from the shelf to the web. London: Facet Publishing.

Engard, N. (ed.)(2009) Library mashups; exploring new ways to deliver library data. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.

Godwin, P. and Parker, J (ed.)(2008) Information Literacy meets Library 2.0. London: Facet publishing.

Gunter, B. Rowlands, I and Nicholas, D (2009) The Google Generation; are ICT innovations changing information-seeking behaviour? Cambridge: Chandos publishing.

IBM (2006) developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee. Available at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.txt (Accessed 12 December 2010).

Martin, A. and Madigan, D. (ed.)(2006) Digital literacies for learning. London: Facet publishing.

O’Reilly, T. (2005) ‘What is Web 2.0’ O’Reilly, 30 September. Available at: http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1 (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

Robinson, L (2010) ‘Libraries in a Digital Age’ thelynxiblog, 23 October. Available at: http://thelynxiblog.com/2010/10/23/libraries-in-a-digital-age-things-we-should-consider/ (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

TechTarget Inc.(2008) Definition of “Web 2.0”. Available at: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci1169528,00.html  (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

W3C (2000) Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

W3C (2004) Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax (3.5 RDF Expression of Simple Facts).  Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-SimpleFacts (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

W3C (2009) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

W3C (2010) Inference. Available at: http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/inference (Accessed: 12 December 2010).

Resources:

Allison, V. (2010) ‘Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Academic Library Services.’ Verity Allison. 12 December. Available at: http://verityallison.blogspot.com/ (Accessed 12 December 2010).