intelligent libraries and apomediators: distinguishing between library 3.0 and library 2.0

http://lis.sagepub.com/Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/3/187The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0961000611435256

2013 45: 187 originally published online 5 March 2012Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceTom Kwanya, Christine Stilwell and Peter G. Underwood

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceAdditional services and information for

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 5, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 23, 2013Version of Record >>

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 4, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 4, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lis.sagepub.com/

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/3/187

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://lis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lis.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/45/3/187.full.pdf

http://lis.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/01/0961000611435256.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

45(3) 187 –197© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0961000611435256lis.sagepub.com

Introduction

Libraries have been in the midst of profound socio-economic and technological transformations over the years but currently, the phenomenon of collaborative and user-generated content is taking this change to a new level (Evans, 2009). Furthermore, the pace of this change is much faster than it has been in the past. In their effort to keep pace, librarians are emphasizing the fact that libraries have to serve the user communities where they (users) live, and how they (users) live. This principle has dictated the pace and scope of numerous changes in librarian-ship in the recent past. Currently, the major determinants of the trends of change in librarianship are the emerging informa-tion and communication technology and the growing demand for closer collaboration between the librarians and library users. It is generally accepted that libraries using the new information and communication technology have greater potential to get closer to their communities. Libraries are now adopting various technological tools and approaches to closely fit library services in the lifestyles of their communities.

One of the exemplars of such technological integration in the design and delivery of library services is the use of labels with deeper meanings to denote improved service mod-els. A lexicon such as Library 2.0, Library 3.0 or Library 4.0

is steadily getting popular with librarianship professionals and library users. Nonetheless, a number of controversies hamper the adoption of such terms to label new ideas, mod-els and techniques of librarianship. Particularly, the use of version numbers largely exemplified by what some schol-ars call the ‘point oh’ phenomenon (Evans, 2009) has stirred significant controversy. Although Giustini (2007) explains that the ‘point oh’ label is ordinarily used to signify the ‘next big thing’, this trend evokes varying reactions from library publics. Generally, while it excites some library stakeholders, others find it empty and annoying.

The ‘point oh’ phenomenon has been borrowed from the software development industry. In software programming, minor improvements on a product normally change the ver-sion from perhaps 1.1 to 1.2 or even 1.10 to 1.11. Such improvements are built on the existing architecture. On the other hand, movement into a different whole number usually

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

Tom Kwanya, Christine Stilwell and Peter G. UnderwoodUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

AbstractUsing 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.

KeywordsApomediation, Library 2.0, Library 3.0, Library 4.0, semantic web, Web 2.0, Web 3.0

Corresponding author:Tom Kwanya, Information Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.Email: [email protected]

435256 LIS45310.1177/09610006114352562012

Article

at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on December 4, 2014lis.sagepub.comDownloaded from


188 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 45(3)

indicates that the product has been built afresh and is sig-nificantly different from the previous one (Saint-Onge, 2009). This reasoning implies that the higher the number the better the product, and the newest the label the latest the develop-ment. Thus, Library 4.0 is deemed to be better Library 3.0 which in turn is better than Library 2.0 and other versions before it. Undoubtedly, this reasoning has stirred a big debate the end of which is not in sight.

The use of version numbers to represent perceived improvement of library services is currently closely tied to the application of the corresponding labels of the World Wide Web. Thus, Library 1.0 is associated with Web 1.0 in the same way Library 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 are linked to their corresponding versions of the Web. This logic is equally controversial and debate on it is far from being concluded. For instance, Rothman (2008) argues that the use of web version suffixes to represent trends in librarianship is a marketing gimmick aimed at hyping ‘newish’ web developments. He explains that as a matter of fact, there is no new version of the Web because it is a continuously evolving continuum. Further, he holds the view that the practice is not only confusing but also alienating potential ‘non-techie’ supporters of the techno-based information management advancements. Evans (2009) warns that such use of this lexicon seem to be aimed at putting pressure on the librarians to transform the library services and environment just to be ‘cool and hip’. However, Cho and Giustini (2008) maintain that the use of version numbers with the Web is essential shorthand that aptly denotes trends or sets of trends. Maness (2006) also explains that the ‘point oh’ naming system is specific to the developments in librarianship stimulated by the corresponding developments in web tech-nology and cannot be alienated from it.

Partridge et al. (2010) suggest the application of Popperian1 approach when discussing the labelling of new concepts. They explain that the names and labels attached to new con-cepts do not matter as much as the substance of the concepts and their significance in practice. They further state that the semantics, and especially disagreement over the terms, should not be a hindrance to the understanding of new concepts. They admit that labels may fade away with time but the con-cepts they represent remain much longer. The essence of their suggestion is that the debate should not be on how suitable the ‘point oh’ labels are but whether they serve adequately as vehicles for communicating trends in librarianship in the light of the constantly changing information environment.

From the foregoing, it is evident that one of the main contentions about labelling of advancements in librarianship is whether the versions actually have distinguishable features which can justify their existence. While several authors have discussed the differences between Library 1.0 and Library 2.0, little is written about Library 3.0 and how it relates to Library 2.0 and the other versions of librarianship before or which may emerge after it. In this paper, the authors seek to bridge this information gap by exploring the concepts of Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 in an attempt to demonstrate that

much as these labels may not have won unanimous approval, they indeed represent tangible milestones in the development of librarianship. Using documentary analysis, the authors gathered and scrutinized the existing literature and arguments on the concepts to unravel their distinctive features.

Library 2.0

The term Library 2.0 was introduced by Michael Casey through his LibraryCrunch blog2 launched in September 2005. In this blog, he expressed his views about the possible benefits of applying the then emerging Web 2.0 ‘to make libraries better’ (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b). This sug-gestion was made in an effort to relate libraries to Web 2.0 just as had been done for the Web 1.0 (Alsbjer, 2008). Discussions about this new concept gained great momentum which was replicated in other blogs and websites and by October 2005 the term was introduced at Internet Librarian 20053 in a speech by Michael Stephen (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b) who used it to refer to the application of Web 2.0 tools to the offering of library services. Library 2.0 is gener-ally perceived as the application of the interactive, collabo-rative and multi-media web-based technologies to library services and collections (Maness, 2006). Though Michael Casey is credited with coining the term, no one person can singly take the credit for the adopted definition or the wave of discussions that popularized it (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b; Cho, 2008; Crawford, 2006).

An understanding of Web 2.0 is critical to understanding Library 2.0. Known as the social web, Web 2.0 revolutionized web technology giving the users the liberty to control their data and enrich their experience. It also reduced the cost of delivering information. The technology provided a platform for participation through collaboration, communication, inter-personal communities and connectivity between applications (Metz, 2007). Evans (2009) suggests that Web 2.0 basically emerged because people wanted to interact with each other.

Web 2.0 enables data openness making its transformation, re-use and sharing not just possible but also easy. Apart from openness, the other key values of Web 2.0 include transpar-ency, mutual respect and creative commons. Web 2.0 thrives on proliferation of content through crowd sourcing and tag-ging. Web 2.0 also recognizes and caters for the long tail. Some of the common Web 2.0 tools include Meetup, Netvibes, blogs, wikis, RSS (really simple syndication), flickr, Facebook, Digg and Slideshare. Dollmann et al. (2009) explain that the outstanding features of Web 2.0 include self-organization and utilization of crowd intelligence obtained through the collective participation of the members; global interconnectedness; continuous development of applications by the users keeping the utilities in a state of perpetual beta; and a light-weight architecture.

Although the concept of Library 2.0 became manifest through Web 2.0, its roots may have emerged from marginalia



Kwanya et al. 189

which were annotations written in the margins of personal copies of books that were loaned, given or sold from person to person (Collins, 2009). Marginalia were also exemplified through scribbles written by library users on the catalogue cards to help other library users by providing suggestions, shortcuts and other brief notes about the usefulness of the information resources in the collection. This practice emerged several centuries ago and, evidently, took several years before mutating into Library 2.0 concepts such as tagging and folk-sonomy (Evans, 2009).

Farkas (2007) admits that defining the Library 2.0 concept is a difficult task. She explains that if you ask any five people what Library 2.0 is you will most likely get five different answers. She adds that the definition thus obtained will depend on the respondent’s perspective and context. For instance, some people would define Library 2.0 as being primarily about technology – being available at the point of need, pro-viding library services online where the users are, creating more interactive library systems that capitalize on the collec-tive intelligence and developing more usable library systems. Other people would focus more on service orientation than technology – user-centred services, surveying users, con-stantly re-evaluating library collections and services, meeting the needs of the longtail; and the list continues. Many other scholars also support this view and admit that the end of the debate on the real meaning of Library 2.0 is not in sight (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b; Crawford, 2006; Deschamps, 2008; Farkas, 2008; Gibbons, 2009; Maness, 2006; Miller, 2005).

Iser (2006) defines Library 2.0 as the expression that cap-tures the practical and focused efforts to use web technologies – Web 2.0 in particular – to connect to and create relationships with library patrons. In her view, librarians use Library 2.0 to bring libraries closest to the people through information-driven social media. She alludes to the notion that Library 2.0 is a second phase in library development which, accord-ing to her, is better, for instance, in terms of facilitating seam-less users-to-users and users-to-librarians interaction than the previous phase.

According to Farkas (2005), the idea of Library 2.0 rep-resents a significant paradigm shift in the way people view library services. It describes a seamless user experience, where usability, interoperability and flexibility of library systems are vital. She adds that it is about the library being more present in the community through programming, com-munity building (both online and physical) and outreach via new communication technology tools such as Instant Messenger, screencasting, blogs and wikis, to mention but a few. She also explains that Library 2.0 is really about allow-ing user participation through writing reviews and tagging in the catalogue and making their voices heard through blogs and wikis. She also underscores the effort by the Library 2.0 approach to make the library human, ubiquitous, and user-centred. To achieve these, she concludes that it requires a change in library systems, web presence and librarians’ atti-tudes. She admits that it will take a lot of work and time for

any library to be completely 2.0, but insists that the idea should inform every new decision made at the library today.

Cho (2008) also asserts that Library 2.0 is a transition within the library world in which programmes and services are delivered to the users through new and innovative meth-ods. He adds that the principles of Library 2.0 are ‘entirely’ user-centred and that they facilitate seamless collaboration between the users themselves to create community content using new communication technologies. He is supported by Sanzo (2008) who also emphasizes that Library 2.0 is a new model of service in libraries that embraces change and tech-nology and engages users to create a customer-driven library. He (Sanzo, 2008) also explains that Library 2.0 looks at how library services fit into the new user-centric world created by Web 2.0 technologies where dynamic web-based tools, online communities, and the ability to customize and per-sonalize everything, drive people’s computing environment.

Habib (2006), however, explains that Library 2.0 brings together two discrete concepts – library and 2.0. He suggests that defining the concept merely as an integration of the two concepts is limiting in the sense that it assumes that both concepts are transferred as they were during the integration. Conversely, he suggests that a true definition of the term should take consideration of the fact that when these two concepts merge they create a totally new and different con-cept which blends several features of either of them. To illustrate this view, let us consider cocktail juice made from mango and orange juices. While the cocktail may have orange and mango flavours, these flavours do not exist independently of each other. They are blended harmoniously to create a new juice with a totally new colour, taste and texture. Similarly, Library 2.0 is neither Web 2.0 nor is it a common library service. Library 2.0, therefore, cannot be defined by the separate characteristics of the two composing concepts but by new features arising from the resulting union between the two. Habib (2006), therefore, proposes that Library 2.0 should be defined as a subset of library services designed to meet user needs precipitated by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0. He explains that this definition demon-strates that Web 2.0 catalyzes changing user needs and that Library 2.0 services have emerged to meet these needs.

It is evident from the foregoing that Library 2.0 emerged from Web 2.0 and is a way of thinking and a way of operat-ing (Casey, 2007). It is not just about access but sharing of information (Albanese, 2004; Maness, 2006). In the words of Walter (2006), Library 2.0 is a commitment to assess, improve, integrate and communicate library services using the newest information technology and the tried and true ‘human technology’. It is any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently and makes use of customer input (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007a). It harnesses the power of emerging information and com-munication technologies to create a dynamic physical and/or virtual library platform which is defined and controlled by the users and librarians and which facilitates the delivery




of a superior library experience to the users anytime anywhere anyhow. Library 2.0 is a movement to establish and promote elegant, useful and usable tools and services which are cus-tomizable and collaborative (Evans, 2009).

Various library and information scholars have proposed more than 10 principles innate in the concept of the ‘2.0’ librarianship. A number of the proposed principles have caused controversy. The contested principles include the library is human; beta is forever; the library encourages the heart; the library recognizes that its users are human too; the library is above all else the idea of constant change; the library facilitates the users’ discovery of their many informa-tion options and how to choose wisely from among them; and the library integrates itself into those places, physical and virtual, where learning takes place. The following four principles, however, have been accepted by the majority as critical to guiding the Library 2.0 discourse and practice.

1. The library is everywhere: A number of scholars aver that the Library 2.0 model facilitates the provision of services at the point of need. Library 2.0 libraries and their services are visible on a wide range of devices, and integrated with services from beyond the library such as portals, virtual learning environments as well as e-commerce applications (Casey, 2007; Chad and Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2005). With Library 2.0, librar-ies move beyond the notion of ‘library without walls’ in which traditional libraries offered destination web-sites where physical library services were digitally reproduced (Miller, 2006). Instead, relevant aspects of that library experience are reproduced wherever and whenever the user requires them. Crawford (2006), however, argues that libraries have never been primary information sources for all people. He asserts that a library that attempts to be all things to all people, to serve all information needs under all circumstances, is a library that will fail: its people and other resources will be stretched too thin to do anything well.

2. The library has no barriers: Library 2.0 also ensures that information resources managed by the library are readily available and that barriers to use them are minimized (Chad and Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2007). In the Library 2.0 environment there is an active pre-sumption that use and re-use of resources is both per-mitted and actively encouraged (Chad and Miller, 2005; Miller, 2005). With many governments adopting Freedom of Information policies, expectations of the users’ rights to access information held by libraries have drastically risen. Library 2.0 is about working with these users and other library stakeholders to enhance the availability of information. Modern librar-ians must constantly work to reduce barriers to their services and libraries (Stephens, 2005).

3. The library invites participation: Library 2.0 invites and facilitates the culture of participation, drawing on

the perspectives and contributions of staff, technology partners and the wider user community (Miller, 2006). This concept is exemplified in wikis, blogs, RSS and social bookmarking systems facilitated by Web 2.0 technologies, as discussed earlier (Chad and Miller, 2005; King, 2007; Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2007). Cho (2008) clarifies further that Library 2.0 does not only encourage user participation and feedback in the devel-opment and maintenance of library services, it is con-tinually evaluated and updated by the users and librarians to meet the changing needs of library users. He also adds that the active and empowered library user is a significant component of Library 2.0. With information and ideas flowing in both directions – from the library to the user and from the user to the library – library services offered in a Library 2.0 environment have the ability to evolve and improve on a constant and rapid basis. Thus, the user becomes an active par-ticipant, co-creator, builder and consultant of the library services and products.

4. Library 2.0 uses flexible best of breed systems: This model requires a new relationship between libraries and a wide range of partners in which all parties together push the limits of what is possible whilst ensuring that core services continue to operate reliably (Chad and Miller, 2005; Crawford, 2006). Library 2.0 challenges the conventional procurement procedures in which detailed specifications of tendered services and products are given to the vendors. Instead, components are inno-vatively mixed. Librarians rely on the expertise and expectations of their users and other stakeholders to identify, acquire and install suitable systems to effec-tively deliver their services. There are scholars, how-ever, who hold the view that too much flexibility opens up libraries for undue influence by the vendors of ser-vices and products. They argue that this is not only disruptive; it also gives too much control of determi-nants of library success such as library management systems and technological utilities to third parties that may not be interested in the welfare of libraries but in profits (Blyberg, 2008; Crawford, 2006).

Library 3.0

Belling et al. (2011) explain that the term Library 3.0 refers to the use of emerging technologies such as the semantic web, cloud computing, mobile devices and established tools like federated search systems, to facilitate the development, organization and sharing of user-generated content through seamless collaboration between users, experts and librarians. They add that the main goal of Library 3.0 is to promote and make library collections widely accessible, searchable and usable. They explain further that the end result of Library 3.0 is the expansion of the ‘borderless library’, where collections



Kwanya et al. 191

can be made available readily to library users regardless of their physical location. Critically, they aver that Library 3.0 is a virtual complement to the physical library space, and should ideally work seamlessly within established library systems, services and collections. Though the concept is still evolving, Chauhan (2009) explains that speed, accuracy, pre-cision and systematic organization of information available on the Web are some of its key elements.

It is not clear when and by whom the term Library 3.0 was actually coined. The authors noted that the earliest men-tion of the term, though nominally, was in the late 2006 (Casey, 2006) and early 2007 (Herring, 2007). However, they also observed that the first significant consideration of the concept seems to be in 2008 on a blog, Pegasus Librarian,4 by Iris Jastram (2008). Jastram (2008) does not really define Library 3.0 but predicts various reactions or ‘camps’ to it. He identifies some of the camps as ‘This will devalue Library 2.0’, ‘This is silly, don’t talk to me about it’, and ‘3.0 evan-gelists’. Responses to the posting are brief and varied but can generally be categorized in the same camps Jastram (2008) predicted even though some people suggest more camps. What is clear from the discussions is that while some acknowledge that time is ripe for the library to progress, others are cautious. Predictably, others are also critical of the use of terms, especially version numbers, to denote devel-opments in librarianship.

Library 3.0 is aimed at turning the unorganized web con-tent into a systematic and organized body of knowledge. It seeks to establish a semantic relationship between all avail-able web content, including the Invisible Web,5 to ensure seamless accessibility, searchability, availability and usabil-ity (Chauhan, 2009). Nonetheless, its basic objective, just like the library service models before it, remains to give the right information to the right user at the right time.

Schultz (2006) explains that Library 3.0 reinstates the librarians in the information value chain. She emphasizes that with the mass of information in the infosphere, great premium is now attached to sifting and repackaging, the roles which librarians play, so as to meet specific customer information needs. She explains that in the Library 3.0 realm library users do not merely select books (products) but also librarians who have the ability not just to organize, but also to annotate and compare books and other information sources, from a variety of perspectives useful to them. She further argues that Library 3.0 has the potential of creating a compelling experience defined by an environment which is authentic, humane, expe-riential, impassioned, relevant and participatory. Giustini (2007) also concludes that Library 3.0 will bring back the age-old principles of librarianship. Similarly, Robu (2008) views Library 3.0 as the opportunity to make use of the age-old library tools such as standardized thesauri, terminologies and classifications to facilitate effective information retrieval from a complexity of sources and formats.

Library 3.0 seems to fulfil the prediction of Libner (2003: 2) that by 2012 libraries will have moved from ‘a single

library to a network of libraries; from one collection to dis-tributed collections; from the catalog[ue] interface to mul-tiple interfaces; from books and journals to information fields and streams encompassing traditional and non-traditional forms of scholarly communication’. Libner (2003) further explains that such libraries will hold massive collections including diverse forms and genres of preprints, traditional publications, informal commentary, research data sets, soft-ware applications, maps, video clips, listserv archives and web pages which will all be accessible anytime and any-where. Breeding (2008) explains that Library 3.0 introduces a full-text, fully integrated and comprehensive search envi-ronment which is deep; comparable to searching inside a book as opposed to searching for the book.

The term Web 3.0 upon which Library 3.0 is based was coined in 2006 by John Markoff of the New York Times to describe the third generation of the Internet services that col-lectively comprise the ‘intelligent web’ (Hendler, 2008; Jastram, 2008). It is generally accepted that Web 3.0 combines the semantic web, Web 2.0 applications and artificial intel-ligence. Scholars also point out that the concept of the seman-tic web, the foundation of Web 3.0, was originally developed by Tim Berners-Lee (Berners-Lee, 1998; Giustini, 2007). The emergence of Web 3.0 has been influenced by several initia-tives seeking to make the Web better. Marshall and Shipman (2003) suggest that most of the efforts have been influenced by the need to organize the Web which was perceived as being in a state of disorder; maturity of the concept of artificial intelligence; and the desire to transfer the burden of solving the problem of information overload on the Web to comput-ers. There are reservations, however, on the actual potential of the semantic web with some scholars pointing out that some of its goals may not be realistic and may just remain as pipe dreams (Marshall and Shipman, 2003; Priss, 2002).

While some scholars refer to it simply as the semantic web, others describe Web 3.0 as the location-aware, moment-relevant (sensitive) and intelligent Web (Lucier, 2009). It is about describing and interconnecting existing data to facili-tate its deeper use through ontologies, contextualization, standardized languages and descriptions. The power of Web 3.0 lies in the linking of data rendering the location of a resource irrelevant. Web 3.0 is a web of data not just machines (Berners-Lee, 1998) aimed at taming the Web (Marshall and Shipman, 2003). Giustini (2007) describes Web 3.0 as the evolution of the Web and people’s responses to it, in finding and organizing new information. Ideally, the users of Web 3.0 systems are able to ask questions in natural language and receive consistently good answers from machines acting as ‘intelligent agents’ (Evans, 2009; Robu, 2008; Wahlster and Dengel, 2006). Web 3.0 is envisioned to resolve the problem caused by disorganization of information in the Web where the users now seem to do more searching than finding of relevant and usable information (Feigenbaum et al., 2009; Giustini, 2007). Web 3.0 proponents assert that it creates a web of meaning (semantics) rather than the web of links as




exhibited by the earlier versions of the Web (Wahlster and Dengel, 2006).

Web 3.0 uses Resource Description Framework (RDF) to describe web resources as opposed to Extensible Markup Language (XML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) used on Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 respectively. The RDF enables databases to update automatically when there are changes in the constituting information resources (Feigenbaum et al., 2009). It also enables Web 3.0 to unify information from different sources and formats. This is how Web 3.0 manages the information overload resulting from duplication, spam, remix and re-use. The RDF enables Web 3.0 to create and maintain interlinked information pathways making informa-tion retrieval easier (Cho and Giustini, 2008). The develop-ment of information pathways is partly done by the isolation, ordering, linking and sharing of authoritative information (Marshall and Shipman, 2003). Marshall and Shipman (2003) further explain that the language of representation, com-munication protocols, access control and authentication are critical to the semantic web. They add that the semantic web enables computers and human beings to work together in organizing and retrieving information.

Strickland (2010) also explains that Web 3.0 can maintain each individual user’s web profile based on their browsing history and use the details to tailor each individual’s web experience. This means that if two individuals performed similar Internet searches using similar tools the results would be different and would be determined by their profiles.

Some critics of the Web 3.0 concept point out that it is not logical to equate the semantic web with Web 3.0. They argue that the semantic web concept dates several years before the proposed emergence of Web 3.0. They also express doubts that a truly semantic web will actually emerge (Metz, 2007; Rothman, 2008). Marshall and Shipman (2003) also point out that the realization of a seamless semantic web will not be without challenges. They explain that the correct rep-resentation of knowledge and ideas, building the necessary trust between machines and people, harmonization of lan-guage as well as high overhead costs pose significant chal-lenges to the realization of Web 3.0 environment.

Several Library 3.0 projects are already ongoing espe-cially in medicine. Some of these projects include Wikiproteins which mines data from several biomedical databases such as PubMed; the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) which is an ontological scheme covering millions of concepts drawn from several medical vocabularies and terminologies; Dr. Wiki, an online repository of information authored by approved physicians; as well as the Health CyberMap which maps selected elements of health information resources in cyberspace so as to improve their retrieval and navigation.

Saw and Todd (2007) identify the shortage of skilled workforce and librarian stereotypes of the nexters6 as some of the potential barriers to the full realization of Library 3.0. They also explain that the fact that libraries tend to hold on to ‘yesterday’s successes even if they are past their use-by

date’ (p. 10) will also hamper the adoption of the model. However, they propose that institutionalisation, innovation, imagination, ideation and inspiration can facilitate the pro-gress towards the realization of the Library 3.0 environment.

The authors observed that no principles of Library 3.0 exist in the literature reviewed. Therefore, they propose the following:

1. The library is intelligent: Bailey (1991) describes intel-ligence as the ability to acquire new knowledge; refine procedures for dealing with a novel situation; know, understand, cognize and deal with novel problems; rep-resent, map and access knowledge in memory; control various processes of intelligent behaviour; perform arith-metic operations; use problem-solving knowledge (rea-soning); interact with and understand other people, machines and programs; recognize natural language; and recognize visual images (visual perception). An intelli-gent library is self-renewing, flexible, functional, inte-grated, efficient, resilient, autonomous and sensitive (adaptive). Library 3.0 model applies artificial intelli-gence systems to offer intelligent services to library users. Library intelligent systems facilitate natural language processing, mapping of free-text terms to controlled vocabulary used by library tools like indexes, flexible and heuristic retrieval strategies (Bailey, 1991; Wahono, 2000). Intelligent library systems can be applied to all library operations including cataloguing, indexing, infor-mation retrieval and reference (Bailey, 1991; Blyberg, 2007). Intelligent library systems enable library users working in the 3.0 environment to retrieve information based on what they mean; not necessarily what they say. Intelligent library systems do not respond to users’ que-ries by mere word matching. Conversely, they use ontol-ogies to comprehend the query and provide appropriate responses based on what the user means. Intelligent library systems make libraries become more interactive, accurate and user-friendlier (Dent, 2007).

2. The library is organized: As information continues to grow in quantity, scope and complexity, the pressure to harness it also builds (Robu, 2008). The Library 3.0 model is designed to turn the unorganized web of infor-mation into a systematic and usable body of knowledge by exhaustively describing and linking every piece of data to enable ease of access. This approach also removes the need to duplicate data. The Library 3.0 model creates an information platform on which users, experts and librarians collaborate to create, sift and share credible information (Schultz, 2006). Library 3.0 information organization strategies provide a way of unifying scat-tered information and accessing even the Invisible Web.

3. The library is a federated network of information path-ways: Library 3.0 tools draw together diverse informa-tion sources and platforms to create a robust information network working seamlessly to facilitate fast, accurate



Kwanya et al. 193

and systematic information searching and retrieval (Belling et al., 2011; Chauhan, 2009). The 3.0 platform unifies disparate information channels, formats and environments to ensure availability, accessibility, search-ability and usability of credible information (Chauhan, 2009). The search environment thus created is not only integrated but also comprehensive. Library 3.0 supports expressiveness and interoperability to create synergies between hitherto disparate information resources and systems. Federated search systems enable users to search a wide range of resources instantly and overcome the challenges occasioned by different login interfaces (and perhaps details); varied search features which display results differently; the need of specialized searching skills and language; and the inability of ordinary search techniques to access the Invisible Web (Belling et al., 2011). Federation of collections in Library 3.0 is enhanced through cloud computing systems which con-nect diverse device and location independent informa-tion tools. Thus information streams seamlessly to the library users from diverse sources with least effort from the users. Library 3.0 facilitates federated information searching through open standards, interoperability and extensibility (Libner, 2003). Essentially, Library 3.0 model enables users to search and retrieve information from a single personalized user-friendly interface.

4. The library is apomediated: Apomediation is the term for social mediation of information. The term, which originated in the health discipline, is derived from the Latin word ‘apo’ which means to stand by or next to (Eysenbach, 2008; O’Connor, 2010). Eysenbach (2007) explains that apomediariaries are tools and peers stand-ing by to guide users to trustworthy information. The concept of apomediation emanates from the view that intermediaries often stand in between the library users and the information they need (Eysenbach, 2008). The quality of the information users receive is based on qualities of the intermediary. Eysenbach (2007) explains that one of the key qualities of an apomediary is trust-worthiness which, he says, is bestowed by the peers and opinion leaders. He further explains that in the apomediated environment, apomediary credibility is more important than the source credibility. This concept seems to support the view of the librarians that library users left alone, through disintermediation, may not make the best use of the library systems. Apomediaries do not leave users alone but also do not stand in between them and information. Conversely, apomediaries stand by the users and guide them to high quality information and services without overbearing on the users (Eysenbach, 2008). O’Connor (2010) suggests that social media play a significant part in apomediation. Sapp and Van Epps (2006) explain that librarians can apomediate by placing ‘hints’ that can lead the users to the right information pathway. Even though

apomediation is largely driven by peers, librarians in a Library 3.0 environment can take up the role of apo-mediaries as well. One of the ways through which librarians can act as apomediaries in the Librarian 3.0 context is by offering help at the ‘point of failure’ (Saw and Todd, 2007). O’Connor (2010) argues that apome-diaries normally feel a sense of obligation to correct wrong information in their sphere of apomediation. There are multiple apomediaries in any apomediated environment hence the assertion of Schultz (2006) that in the Library 3.0 context, library users do not just select information sources but also librarians who have the potential and history of consistently meeting their infor-mation needs. It is probable that the principles of natu-ral selection will apply in apomediated environments as credible apomediaries thrive while the less credible ‘die away’ naturally from lack of use.

5. The library is ‘my library’: The need to personalize library services has been constant in the history of libraries. Indeed, ancient librarians remembered the faces and interests of each of the users and endeavoured to offer as much personalized services as was then possible. Nonetheless, the need for deeper personaliza-tion has become more apparent in the recent past due to the emergence of information technologies which have provided greater opportunities for the librarians to tailor services and products to the tastes of the users. One of the approaches in personalizing library services was the ‘MyLibrary’ concept which emerged in the early 2000s. It was triggered by the users’ demands for greater levels of personalization similar to what various service providers such as search engines (MyYahoo!) and the media (MyCNN) were offering their clients on various Internet platforms. These dig-ital platforms provided the users with an environment to personalize the services through unparalleled cus-tomization, interactivity, interfaces and user support (Sanchez et al. 2001). Because library users became accustomed to getting such customizable services, they began to demand similar services from the library (Cohen et al., 2000). They wanted library services which were uniquely tailored for their personal needs and circumstances while still giving them the oppor-tunity to interact with other library users and to form or join groups to enrich their library experience (Storey, 2004). Personalization of library services is achieved through the design, management and delivery of con-tent based on known, observed and predictive informa-tion. Sanchez et al. (2001) explain that personalization enables users to generate, own and maintain individu-alized information spaces which contain multiple media, personal schedules, visualization tools and other user agents. Frias-Martinez et al. (2009) explain that personalization of library services is achieved through adaptability and adaptivity mechanisms. They explain




that adaptability mechanisms enable users to adapt the content, layout and navigation support to their prefer-ences by themselves while the adaptivity tools facili-tate library systems to automatically adapt to the needs and interests of the users based on observed user behav-iour. Library 3.0 is the culmination of the efforts of the librarians to facilitate the library users to personal-ize library services, spaces, products, staff and experi-ence. Library 3.0 tools enable librarians and library users to create appropriate personal and professional profiles that help to tailor the library services and prod-ucts to their needs. Some of the personalized services may not even be official or universal services (Cohen et al., 2000). On the Library 3.0 platform no two users are exactly the same and neither can their usage be. Personalization recognizes the reality that a librarian cannot organize library resources into categories that are intuitive for every user. Apart from fitting the library into the lives of the users more accurately, per-sonalization also helps users to filter information and cope with the information overload (Storey, 2004); facilitates incredibly targeted marketing of library products, services and staff (Cohen et al., 2000); ena-bles library users to move seamlessly from personal to group spaces and between group spaces (Sanchez et al., 2001) with their personal library ‘effects’; stim-ulates loyalty by transforming the users into long-term faithful partners (Holmström, 2002); assures personal and professional privacy and thus enables the users to control their space (Holmström, 2002). Library 3.0 systems apply adaptability and adaptivity mechanisms to offer superior personalization platforms.

Distinguishing Library 3.0 from Library 2.0

Table 1 summarizes some of the major differences between the Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 models. The authors conclude that the Library 3.0 model differs from Library 2.0 model in

terms of the applied web technology, search approach, con-tent generation paradigm, type of mediation as well as infor-mation organization and retrieval approaches.

Conclusion

In spite of its apparent misuse, versioning of library service models is not as arbitrary as its critics have projected it to be. It is evident from the foregoing that version numbers are used to signify important changes of approach in designing and delivering library services in equally changing informa-tion environments. Given that librarianship has not reached a plateau of progress, the authors predict that this trend is likely to remain into the future. Nonetheless, the authors do not foresee an end to the debate on how appropriate the ver-sion labels are.

So far, three main library versions – Library 1.0, Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 – have emerged. It is generally accepted that Library 1.0 represents the conservative traditional library in which the users are passive. Library 2.0 repre-sents a major departure from the conservative library ser-vice model and emphasizes the participation of the users to the extent that the librarians are eclipsed. Library 3.0 seems to be a hybrid between the 1.0 and 2.0 models and reasserts the librarians in the information value chain as apomediaries. Apart from the above three models, Library 4.0, dubbed the aesthetic library, is currently being mooted. Schultz (2006) explains that it will be a luxurious ‘WiFree’ space for meditation, relaxation and generation of ideas. She imagines Library 4.0 as the comfortable space enriched with ‘exquisite brandy, smooth coffee, aromatic cigar, smell of leather and rustle of pages’. There is general con-sensus that none of the library services models will entirely replace another. Conversely, they complement and absorb each other.

FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Table 1. Summary of major differences between Library 2.0 and Library 3.0.

Library 2.0 Library 3.0

Social Web Semantic WebNetwork of links Network of data (meaning)Disintermediation ApomediationCollective intelligence (wisdom of the crowd) Selective intelligence (wisdom of the expert)Quantity of information (information overload) Quality of informationFolksonomy Ontology and Resource Description and Access (RDA)Communal environment Personalized environment (‘my library’)XML and Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) Resource Description Framework (RDF)Dumb searching based on keywords Smart (intuitive) searching in natural languageSome items categorized as Invisible Web are inaccessible All-visible, all-accessible Web



Kwanya et al. 195

Notes1. This is derived from the work of Karl Popper, a socio-political

philosopher who was based at the London School of Economics (Thornton, 2009).

2. The blog is available online at http://www.librarycrunch.com.3. Conference for information professionals who are using, devel-

oping, and embracing Internet, Intranet, and web-based strategies in their roles as information architects and navigators, Webmasters and Web managers, content evaluators and developers, taxono-mists, searchers, community builders, information providers, trainers, guides, and more held at Monterey, CA, 24–26 October 2005. More information on the conference can be obtained from http://www.internet-librarian.com/2005/.

4. The URL of the blog is http://pegasuslibrarian.com/2008/08/library-3-0.html.

5. The Invisible Web is perceived as the deep and unlinked collec-tions and databases which are not accessible through ordinary search engines (Lewandowski and Mayr, 2007).

6. This refers to the generation of children born between 1976 and 1994. They are also called ‘Generation Y’ or ‘Millennials’ (Gardner, 2006).

References

Albanese AR (2004) Campus Library 2.0. Available at: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA408330.html (accessed 26 January 2008).

Alsbjer P (2008) Interaction: Anything goes 2.0. Available at: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2370/01/SPLQ-2-2008.pdf (accessed 3 June 2009).

Bailey CW (1991) Intelligent library systems: Artificial intelli-gence technology and library automation systems. Available at: http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/intlibs.pdf (accessed 28 August 2011).

Belling A, Rhodes A, Smith J et al. (2011) Exploring Library 3.0 and beyond. Available at: http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/downloads/20102011_Shared_Leadership_Program_Presentation_Day_/exploring_library_3.pdf (accessed 21 June 2011).

Berners-Lee T (1998) Semantic web roadmap. Available at: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html (accesses 24 July 2011).

Blyberg J (2007) Beyond the OPAC: The semantic library. Available at: http://www.blyberg.net/downloads/SemanticLib-MLC07.pdf (accessed 28August 2011).

Blyberg J (2008) Library 2.0 debased. Available at: http://www.blyberg.net/2008/01/17/library-20-debased/ (accessed 28 January 2008).

Breeding M (2008) Beyond Web 2.0: Taking the social read-write web to the enterprise level. Available at: http://www.library-technology.org/docs/13320.ppt (accessed 21 August 2011).

Casey M (2006) Wikipedia to Library 2.0: You can stay. Available at: http://www.librarycrunch.com/2006/11/ (accessed 21 August 2011).

Casey M (2007) Service for the next generation library: A Library 2.0 perspective. Available at: http://www.librarycrunch.com/ (accessed 27 March 2007).

Casey M and Savastinuk LC (2007a) We know what Library 2.0 is and is not. Available at: http://www.librarycrunch.com/2007/10/we_know_what_library_20_is_and.html (accessed 29 January 2008).

Casey M and Savastinuk LC (2007b) Library 2.0: A Guide to Par-ticipatory Library Service. Medford, OR: Information Today.

Chad K and Miller P (2005) Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0. Available at: http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf(accessed 23 March 2007).

Chauhan SK (2009) Key 2 information: Library 3.0. Available at: http://key2information.blogspot.com/2009/09/library-30.html (accessed 21 June 2011).

Cho A (2008) Library 2.0 and the new librarianship. Available at: http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/library_20_and_the_new_librarianship (accessed 7 June 2009).

Cho A and Giustini D (2008) Web 3.0 and health librarians: An introduction. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association 29(1): 13–18.

Cohen S, Fereira J, Horne A et al. (2000) MyLibrary: personalized electronic services in the Cornell University library. D-Lib Magazine 6(4). Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april00/mistlebauer/04mistlebauer.html (accessed 25 August 2011).

Collins B (2009) Marginalia. Available at: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/marginalia/ (accessed 17 August 2009).

Crawford W (2006) Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0’. Cites & Insights 6(2): 1–32.

Dent VF (2007) Intelligent agent concepts in the modern library. Library Hi Tech 25(1): 108–125.

Deschamps R (2008) Library 2.0 debased. Available at: http://otherlibrarian.wordpress.com/ (accessed 28 January 2008).

Dollmann T, Fettke P, Loos P et al. (2009) Web 2.0 enhanced auto-mation of collaborative business process model management in cooperation environments. Paper presented at the 20th Austral-asian conference on information systems, Melbourne, Australia, 2–4 December 2009. Available at: http://bauweb.bau.fh-giessen.de/bauvogrid2/images/stories/File/iwi_web%202.0.pdf (accessed 24 July 2011).

Evans W (2009) Building Library 3.0. Oxford: Chandos.Eysenbach G (2007) From intermediation to disintermediation to

apomediation: New models for consumers to access and assess the credibility of health information in the age of Web 2.0. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 129(1): 162–166.

Eysenbach G (2008) Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research 10(3): e22. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626430/ (accessed 28 July 2011).

Farkas M (2005) Web/Library 2.0 backlash. Available at: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2005/12/01/weblibrary-20-backlash/ (accessed 5 May 2008).

Farkas M (2007) Critiques of Library 2.0. Available at: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2007-January/042709.html (accessed 6 June 2009).

Farkas M (2008) The essence of Library 2.0. Available at: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/ (accesses 17 April 2008).




Feigenbaum L, Herman I, Hongsermeier T et al. (2009) The seman-tic web in action. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=semantic-web-in-actio&;page=1 (accessed 20 July 2011).

Frias-Martinez E, Chen SY and Liu X (2009) Evaluation of a per-sonalized digital library based on cognitive styles: Adaptivity vs. adaptability. Available at: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/ 2438/3195/1/Evaluation%20of%20a%20Personalized% 20Digital%20Library%20based%20on%20Cognitive%20Styles%20Adaptivity%20vs%20Adaptability%20.pdf (accessed 25 August 2011).

Gardner SF (2006) Preparing for the nexters. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 7(40): 87. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636975/pdf/ajpe87.pdf (accessed 21 August 2011).

Gibbons S (2009) The Academic Library and the Net Gen Student. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Giustini D (2007) Web 3.0 and medicine. Brirish Medical Journal 335: 1273–1274.

Habib MC (2006) Toward academic Library 2.0: Development and application of a library 2.0 methodology. MS Thesis, University of North Carolina, USA.

Hendler J (2008) Web 3.0: Chicken farms on the semantic web. IEEE Computer 41(1): 106–108.

Herring MY (2007) BackTalk: Get a (real) life. Available at: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6440565.html (accessed 21 August 2011).

Holmström J (2002) A framework for personalized library services. Available at: http://www.jonas.ax/publications/personalized.pdf (accessed 24 August 2011).

Iser S (2006) What is Library 2.0? Available (3 June 2009) at: http://www.yalibrarian.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/library20_02122006.pdf.

Jastram I (2008) Library 3.0. Available at: http://pegasuslibrarian.com/2008/08/library-3-0.html (accessed 21 August 2011).

King DL (2007) Inviting participation in Web 2.0. Available at: http://www.davidleeking.com/2007/01/03/inviting-participa-tion-in-web-20/ (accessed 28 January 2008).

Lewandowski D and Mayr P (2007) Exploring the academic invisible web. Available at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0702/0702103.pdf (accessed 29 August 2011).

Libner K (2003) Working the network: A future for the academic library. Available at: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~marcum/libner.doc (accessed 12 August 2011).

Lucier T (2009) What is Web 3.0 definition. Available at: http://www.tourismkeys.ca/blog/2009/01/what-is-web-30-definition/ (accessed 14 July 2011).

Maness JA (2006) Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology 3(2). Available at: http://www.webol-ogy.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html (accessed 23 October 2007).

Marshall CC and Shipman FM (2003) Which semantic web? Avail-able at: http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/ht03-sw-4.pdf (accessed 24 July 2011).

Metz C (2007) Web 3.0. Available at: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102852,00.asp (accessed 24 July 2011).

Miller P (2005) Web 2.0: Building the new library. Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/ (accessed 27 March 2007).

Miller P (2006) Library 2.0: The challenge of disruptive innovation. Available at: http://www.talis.com/resources/documents/447_Library_2_prf1.pdf (accessed 27 March 2007).

O’Connor D (2010) Apomediation and ancillary care: researchers’ responsibilities in health-related online communities. Interna-tional Journal of Internet Research Ethics 3(12). Available at: http://ijire.net/issue_3.1/7_OConnor.pdf (accessed 23 August 2011).

Partridge H, Lee J and Munro C (2010) Becoming ‘Librarian 2.0’: The skills, knowledge, and attributes required by library and information science professionals in a Web 2.0 world and beyond. Library Trends 59(1/2): 315–335.

Priss U (2002) Alternatives to the ‘semantic web’: Multi- strategy knowledge representation. In: Challenges in knowl-edge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the seventh international ISKO conference (ed. MJ López- Huertas), Granada, Spain, 10–13 July 2002, pp. 305–310. Würzburg: Ergon .

Robu I (2008) Semantic web applications in biology and medicine. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries 4(1): 39–42.

Rothman D (2008) Disliking ‘Web 2.0’ and hating ‘Web 3.0’. Available at: http://davidrothman.net/2008/01/08/disliking-web-20-and-hating-web-30/ (accessed 24 July 2011).

Saint-Onge M (2009) Law Librarian 2.0: Building the law librarian of the future. Available at: http://law.lexisnexis.com/infopro/Librarian-Relations-Group/Meet-the-LRCs/Law-Librarian-20-Building-the-Law-Librarian-of-the-Future-0309/ (accessed 18 May 2011).

Sanchez JA, Proal C, Perez D et al. (2001) Personal and group spaces: Integrating resources for the users of digital libraries. Proceedings of the 4th workshop on human factors in computer systems (IHC), Florianopolis, Brazil, 1–12 October. Available at: http://ict.pue.udlap.mx/pubs/pgspaces_public.pdf (accessed 23 August 2011).

Sanzo S (2008) Introducing Library 2.0. Available (3 June 2009) at: http://forums.nelinet.net/blogs/news/?p=101.

Sapp MR and Van Epps AS (2006) Equal access: What does the digital revolution mean for library web sites. Available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_research/30 (accessed 24 august 2011).

Saw G and Todd H (2007) Library 3.0: Where art our skills? Paper presented at the world library and information con-gress: 73rd general conference and council, Durban, South Africa, 19–23 August 2007. Available at: http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/151-Saw_Todd-en.pdf (accessed 24 January 2012).

Schultz W (2006) To a temporary place in time: On the way to the library experience of the future. OCLC Newsletter. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/6.htm (accessed 16 August 2011).



Kwanya et al. 197

Stephens M (2005) Do libraries matter: On Library and Librarian 2.0. Available at: http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/Web+2.0/ (accessed 27 January 2008).

Stephens M (2007) Tame the web: Libraries and technology. Avail-able (27 March 2007) at: http://www.tametheweb.com/.

Storey T (2004) Libraries look to balance technology, cost and usefulness. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/news/publica-tions/newsletters/oclc/2004/266/personalize.html (accessed 25 August 2011).

Strickland J (2010) How Web 3.0 will work. Available at: http://www.hardyinst.com/newsletter/dec2010/web3-0.pdf (accessed 1 August 2011).

Thornton S (2009) Karl Popper. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ (accessed 9 August 2011).

Wahlster W and Dengel A (2006) Web 3.0: Convergence of Web 2.0 and the semantic web. Technology Radar 2(June): 1–23.

Wahono RS (2000) Intelligent agent architecture for digital library. Available at: http://ilmukomputer.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/romi-ti9-iaa-digitallibrary.pdf (accessed 24 January 2012).

Walter S (2006) What 2.0 means to me. Available at: http://acrlblog.org/2006/03/10/what-20-means-to-me/ (accessed 27 January 2008).

Author biographies

Tom Kwanya is a Knowledge Management specialist with several years of practical experience. He holds a PhD in Information Studies. Tom’s areas of research include social networking and media, inno-vation in research libraries, knowledge management, and public relations in libraries.

Christine Stilwell is a Professor of Information Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. She has been rated by the National Research Foundation as an established researcher since 2008 and serves on several academic journal editorial advisory committees. Christine has also published a co-edited book, a directory of South African resource centres, book chapters, and numerous journal articles.

Peter G. Underwood is Honorary Professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Emeritus Professor at the University of Cape Town, having occupied the Chair of Librarianship from 1992–2010. He is the author and co-author of several books and journal articles. Peter focuses on information literacy information systems manage-ment, and organizational behaviour in libraries and information services.



intelligent libraries and apomediators: distinguishing between library 3.0 and library 2.0

Documents