Intelligent libraries and apomediators: Distinguishing between Library 3.0 and Library 2.0

Abstract

Using the ‘point oh’ naming system for developments in librarianship is attracting debate about its appropriateness, basis and syntax and the meaning and potential of Library 2.0. Now a new term, Library 3.0, has emerged. Is there is any significant difference between the two models? Using documentary analysis to explore the terms, the authors conclude that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are different. Whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries guiding library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst those who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. It provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. The authors see the 3.0 library as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.

Bibliotecas, medios y métricas de la web social

“…Los botones de compra que están presentando los medios sociales afianzan y confirman las posibilidades de retorno económico de estos medios. 3 La bibliografía profesional nacional y extranjera sobre el uso de la web social por parte de las bibliotecas, ha sido abundante desde los inicios en 2006 y 2007 hasta la actualidad (Gómez Pereda y Merlo-Vega, 2010;Ferrer Martínez, 2012;Margaix-Arnal, 2013;Smeaton y Davis, 2014;McKendrick, 2013;Rogers, 2012;Ahmed, 2014;Gross, 2011;Kwanya, 2012;Singh y Gill, 2013). Todas las áreas de la biblioteca y los servicios que ofrece cada una de ellas, se ven involucrados en el uso de las herramientas y aplicaciones de la web social, que por otro lado han transformado los perfiles profesionales a la luz de los medios sociales.…”

New Faces of Marketing In The Era of The Web: From Marketing 1.0 To Marketing 3.0

“…But it is largely characterized by semantics. Its emergence is based on three crucial components: Semantic Web, Web 2.0 applications and artificial intelligence (Kwanya et al, 2012).Web 3.0 is the third version of the Web (2010-2020) that added value for users who use a more intelligent Web, enabling them to have a better experience ( Hendler, 2009;Jastram, 2008). It consists of organizing the enormous amount of available information, taking into account the context and the personal needs of each user (Giustini, 2007).…”

Collections Redux: The Public Library as a Place of Community Borrowing

“…It implicates movement from 1.0, in which the mandate of content and services resided with the library, which catered to passive users. Likewise, it implicates movement toward 3.0, in which user generation takes place in sense-making structures produced by apomediating librarians and realized through semantic technology (Kwanya, Stilwell, and Underwood 2013). Point-oh progression applied to libraries can both describe the library's development as passively tied into larger general schemes and provide ideological fuel for active development.…”

“…The first strand is concerned with the digital extension of libraries and includes issues spanning from backend collection management to front-end e-reading and social media. Generally the research focuses on either the "digital library" (Borgman 1999;Candela, Castelli, and Pagano 2011) or on the popular "point-oh" perspectives (Carlsson 2012;Kwanya, Stilwell, and Underwood 2013). The second strand focuses on the public library as a worldly located place of social activity.…”