Talk:Main Page
From SIG Library 2.0
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 01:40, 15 November 2007 202.7.166.170 (Talk) (Library 2.0 and Web 2.0) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 19:10, 19 November 2007 PatrickD (Talk | contribs) (text moved to issues) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | '''WEB 2.0''' | ||
| - | <p> | ||
| - | The phenomenon of Web 2.0 centres on the community success of internet based collaborative systems: Wiki’s Blogs and intuitive Content Management that allows end-user engagement and contribution. The key transformation to existing web based systems, and an underlying principle of Web 2.0, is that “users add value”. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | However, for users to add value, systems need to safely facilitate engagement. Behind the scenes of Web 2.0 there are core technologies that enable this community participation. These include: mash-ups (enabling user interfaces that permit building new applications with elements of your application), ubiquitous collaboration (eg Wiki’s), open communication(e.g. Blogs), meta-data visibility and collaboration (e.g. mash-ups built on Google Maps & Mapping metadata and the Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative). | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | '''LIBRARY 2.0 & DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICES''' | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | The effective management of digital resources for which the library is custodian or mediator has been an important focus of the Digital Library initiatives. The many challenges of unlocking the value of library resources through digital initiatives (archiving issue, Intellectual Property issues, metadata standards) are common to Library 2.0 initiatives. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | It is important to recognize that Web 2.0 can be deployed both for outward communication and for: | ||
| - | <li> Libraries networking with other libraries </li> | ||
| - | <li> Libraries networking with their clients </li> | ||
| - | <li> Library clients participating in Library metadata access </li> | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | That is, it is important not to neglect the application of Web 2.0 to inter-library co-operation and digital resource sharing. Libraries have long demonstrated commitment to metadata and community networking (c.f. Z39.50 and extensive use of Discussion lists by professional bodies). Examples of potential applications of collaborative library activities in Web 2.0 can include: | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | <li> Open Source Library Management System development </li> | ||
| - | <li> Smart client LMS applications to allow light-weight deployment of Library services to libraries that have minimal technical infrastructure (Smart client entails the development of applications that can operate in a mixed mode of off-line and on-line, and support simple host-base deployment of application updates). </li> | ||
| - | <li> Sharing digital library resources </li> | ||
| - | <li> Collaborative systems for archiving & preservation</li> | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | Examples of collaborative communication with the public and library clients could include: | ||
| - | <li> Library client participation in/commenting on book & other resources (ranking, comments) – “opening” the catalogue. </li> | ||
| - | |||
| - | <li> Biblio-cache – like GEO-cache – apply the idea to libraries! </li> | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | There are risks associated with engaging Library clients – libraries leave the “safety” of the “controlled vocabulary”. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | '''Meta-data visibility''' | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | The important element of mash-ups is not that they are not initiated by a particular information supplier, they are enabled by the supplier. Libraries need to do some basic groundwork to transform powerful but legacy metadata resources into a framework that encourages mash-up style use of library resources, either by collaborating library organizations, or indeed by library clients themselves. Consistency of metadata delivery is particularly important – approaches such the as the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) are a starting point. Meta-data is the core to Web-2.0 systems and end-user participation. Meta-data can enable: | ||
| - | <li> visibility & discoverability of the OPAC and electronic resources </li> | ||
| - | <li> community annotation & discussion & interlinking of the collection (Blogs, discussion lists, Wikis) </li> | ||
| - | <li> opening inter-networked library resources to public access and mash-up programming.</li> | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | Once metadata is published and accessible, the participating community can innovate independent of the organizations supplying the metadata. For example : “where is the nearest place to get this resource” – “what are the comparative costs to obtain this resource”? Publishing library services can be accomplished through the core library systems or by interposing web services in front of existing legacy library services. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | Metadata can be “enhanced” through community annotation and contribution. There are risks, including technological (virus injection), qualitative (poor or deliberately mal-crafted metadata) and legal (IP, defamation & other law). Nevertheless, meta-data delivery through web services can be exciting and community based – e.g. mash-up gaming activities such as Geo-caching. While facilitating user participating is not necessarily easily, libraries are centrally placed to encourage internal and external collaboration. A comprehensive approach to Library 2.0 actually implies quite a radical re-evaluation of the web presence of the library. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | An important educational process is the engagement of library staff in Web 2.0 technologies. In the first instance this may be through engagement in the community-based systems such as Blogging and Wikis. Library vendors are opening elements of their applications to web services delivery and existing Application Programming Interfaces may open existing library systems by providing Web 2.0 services layers through to existing legacy OPAC’s and interlibrary loans systems. Opening the OPAC and other library services through a web interface requires advocacy in achieving better reach for the library systems. Few libraries are well resourced with programmers or technical support. However, an essential principle of Web 2.0 is to widen the technical resource base to the participating community to enable to building of richer personalized systems. The important outcome of Web 2.0 enabling the library web services is that it enlists wider community participation in the technological services offered by the library in a programmatic (through mash-ups) and non-programmatic manner (through content contribution) manner. “It takes a village to raise a child” equally applies Library 2.0 – Web 2.0 is about building systems that are larger than a single service. Building a Library 2.0 platform requires wide engagement: with those developing metadata standards for libraries; software vendors and open source developers; and most especially with the client community. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | '''PROBLEMS & ISSUES''' | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | There are challenges to effective application of Web 2.0 principles to Library 2.0. When opening the catalogue to user contribution, it is important to maintain the privacy of the constituency. Ownership of metadata is also an issue that affects man Web 2.0 applications. There are significant limitations relating to content ownership and public visibility of metadata which, while not affecting the OPAC, may apply to other electronic resources within the library service infrastructure. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | Web 3.0, or the “Semantic Web”, represents a problematic effort to introduce controlled vocabulary classification concepts to wider web-based publishing. While the conceptual foundations of the Semantic Web are solid, the practical outcomes have been limited. In contrast to the Web 1.0 technologies (richly hyperlinked content discoverable through search engines), and Web 2.0 technologies (user engagement in the content and services delivery), Web 3.0 has been bogged down with ungainly models for semantic description that have not reached any level of popular take-up (or it would be part of Web 2.0 already). | ||
| - | |||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | Libraries, when engaging in Library 2.0 transition must reach balance between controlled vocabulary & unstructured community contribution without losing the core value for rigorous research infrastructure supported by proper content classification. The equal qualitative risk is the possible decline in research rigor as researchers behave as though articles that are not electronic do not exist. | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | There are other Internet community safety issues: preventing code injection through the community interface (for example code injection through JavaScript, Ajax interfaces and other methods). | ||
| - | </p><p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | ''Edmund Balnaves, PhD<br> | ||
| - | SC Member, IFLA IT Section<br> | ||
| - | Prosentient Systems,<br> | ||
| - | Sydney, Australia''<br> | ||
