2

'Point oh' libraries

Abstract

A major determinant of change in librarianship is the drive for closer collaboration between librarians and library users. Libraries are adopting technological tools and approaches to closely fit library services to the lifestyles of their communities. One exemplar of such integration in the design and delivery of library services is the use of labels with deeper meanings to denote improved service models. A number of controversies hamper the adoption of such terms to label new ideas, models and techniques of librarianship, particularly the use of version numbers, largely exemplified by what some scholars call the 'point oh' phenomenon. This chapter explores these developments.

Keywords

Library 0.0 Library 1.0 Library 2.0 Library 3.0 Library 4.0 Libraries have been through profound socio-economic and technological transformations over the years, but currently the phenomenon of collaborative and user-generated content, facilitated by emerging technologies, is taking this process of profound 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 emphasising the fact that library service must be delivered to the locus of the community of users and in ways that suit how those users live. This principle has dictated the pace and scope of numerous changes in librarianship in the recent past. Currently, the major determinants of change in librarianship are the emerging information and communications technologies and the growing demand for closer collaboration between librarians and library users. It is generally accepted that libraries using the new information and communications technologies have greater potential to get closer to their communities and to provide services compatible with the lifestyles of those 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 models. Designators such as Library 2.0, Library 3.0 or Library 4.0 are steadily growing popular with librarians and library users. Nonetheless, a number of controversies surround the adoption of such terms to label new ideas, models and techniques of librarianship. Particularly, the use of 'version numbers', largely exemplified by what some scholars 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 constituencies. 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 development, minor improvements on a product normally change the version 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 indicates that the product has been built afresh and is significantly changed product from the previous version (Saint-Onge, 2009). This reasoning implies that the higher the number the better the product, and the newest label signifies the latest development. Thus, Library 4.0 is deemed to be better than Library 3.0, which in turn is better than Library 2.0 and other versions before it. This reasoning has stirred up a big debate, the end of which is not yet 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 the corresponding versions of the web. This logic is equally controversial and the subject of lively and on-going debate. 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 there can be no 'new version', because the web is continuously evolving and should be seen as a continuum rather than a series of spasmodic developments. Further, he holds the view that this practice of labelling not only confuses but also alienates potential 'non-techie' supporters of the techno-based information management advancements. Evans (2009) warns that use of these labels seems to be aimed at putting pressure on librarians to transform the library services and environment just to be fashionably 'on trend'. Cho and Giustini (2008), however, 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 those developments in librarianship which have been stimulated by the corresponding developments in web technology and cannot be alienated from it. Partridge, Lee and Munro (2010) suggest the application of a Popperian approach when discussing the labelling of new concepts. This approach is derived from the work of Karl Popper, one of the leading 20th-century philosophers of science, who was based at the London School of Economics (Thornton, 2009). Partridge, Lee and Munro (2010) explain that the names and labels attached to new concepts 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 development of the understanding of new concepts. They admit that labels may change or be replaced but the concepts they represent remain much longer. The essence of their suggestion is that the debate should not be about how suitable the 'point oh' labels are but whether or not 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 the 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 before it or Library 4.0 after it. This chapter seeks to bridge this information gap by exploring the existing 'point oh' libraries- 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 -in an attempt to demonstrate that while these labels may not have won broad approval, they do indeed represent tangible milestones in the development of librarianship.

2.1. Advances in web technology: webs 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0

Web technology has evolved constantly over the years in response to the prevailing and emerging needs of users. Evans (2006) asserts that there has been no master plan or grand scheme which has guided web technology advancement. He further asserts that it is not possible to predict accurately the nature or depth of changes that the web will undergo in the near or distant future. This section explores the various web generations thus far.

2.1.1. Web 1.0

This is perceived as the general term used to refer to the first generation of the World Wide Web. The term is also used to denote the generation of the web existing before the bursting of the 'dot-com' bubble in 2001. Lately, the term is often used to describe the web prior to the emergence of blogs, wikis, social networking sites and web-based applications. This generation was developed by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 and was popularised in 1991 (Berners-Lee, 1998). It is typified by top-down hierarchical information architecture in which users passively consume the content of websites. They use the content and leave it in the same state. Web 1.0 focuses on content presentation and not generation. Thus, Web 1.0 sites are static, operating on a read-only platform, less interactive and proprietary than later generations (Strickland, 2008). Taking the unidirectional communication model, Web 1.0 involves one individual or organisation pushing similar content to a wide variety of audiences, an approach which some scholars have described as 'brochureware' (Evans, 2006). Web 1.0 sites apply the just-in-case approach, in which generic content is created by a website owner in the hope that someone might find it useful some day. Given its impersonal nature, Web 1.0 content is written in a descriptive and professional style and is suited for publishing, not participation. Web 1.0 is about companies and talk-down, not communities or conversations. No wonder Barsky and Purdon (2006) argue that Web 1.0 is all about commerce and less about people. Thus, the Web 1.0 platform exhibits a largely passive experience, as users are restricted to viewing websites as they are, as complete products and not user-mediated services. Naik and Shivalingaiah (2008) argue that Web 1.0 is a system of interlinked, hypertext documents accessed over the Internet. They add that the Web 1.0 site owners are interested only in creating a presence on the web to make their content available around...