scientific research environments. One example is the CombeChem work at Southampton Univer- sity which involved the development of a formal ontology for laboratory work which was derived from a folksonomy based on established working practices within the laboratory. However, there is, to put it mildly, some debate about the role and applicability of folksonomies within formal
knowledge management environments, not least because of the lack of semantic with researchers of all disciplines in order to engage in peer debate, share early results or seek help on experimental issues (Skipper, 2006). However, it has had no serious review of its use in higher education (Placing et al., 2005). Butler, (2005) argues that blogging tends to be used by younger researchers and that many of these make use of anonymous names to avoid being tracked back to their institu- tions. Some disciplines are so fast-moving, or of sufficient public interest, that this kind of quick publishing is required (Butler cites climate change as one example).
There has also been a trend towards collective blogs (Varmazis, 2006) such as Science Blogs and Real Climate, in which working scientists communicate with each other and the public, as well as blog-like, peer-reviewed sites such as Nature Protocols. These tools provide consider- able scope to widen the audience for scientific papers and to distinction between the use of tags.
A recent JISC report Terminology services and technology (Tudhope, Koch, and Heery, 2006) reviewed some of the characteristics of ‘social tagging’ systems and the report notes that ‘Few evaluative, systematic studies from professional circles in knowledge organisations, information science or semantic web communities have ap- peared to date’ (p. 39). Issues raised by the JISC report include the obvious lack of any control over the vocabulary at even the most basic level (for example, word forms – plural or singular – and use of numbers and transliteration) and goes on to highlight shortcomings related to the absence of rules in the tagging process, for example, on the granularity or specificity of tags.
Some researchers are, however, beginning to investigate whether it could be fruitful to com- bine socially created tags with existing, formal ontologies (Al-Khalifa, and Davis, 2006). Tag- ging does provide for the marking up of objects in environments where controlled indexing is not taking place, and as the tagging process is strongly
‘user-centric’, such tagging can reflect topicality and change very quickly. (JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. 2007).
Secondly, although evidence is only anecdotal, blogging seems to be becoming more popular assist in the process of public understanding of science and research (Amsen, 2006). Indeed, Ash- lin, and Ladle, (2006), argue that scientists need to get involved in the debates that are generated across the blogosphere where science discussions take place. These tools also have the potential to facilitate communication between researchers and practitioners who have left the university environment.
Thirdly, social tagging and bookmarking have also found a role in science (Lund, 2006). An ex- ample of this approach is CiteULike a free service to help academics share, store, and organise the academic papers they are reading. Finally, there have also been developments in scientific data mash-ups and the use of Web Services to link together different collections of experimental data (Swan, 2006). Examples include AntBase and AntWeb, which use Web Services to bring together data on 12,000 ant species, and the USA-based water and environmental observatories project (Liu et.al., 2007).
This corresponds to moves in recent years to open up experimental data and provide it to other researchers as part of the process of publication (Frey, 2006) and the Murray-Rust Research Group is particularly well known for this. The E-bank project is also looking at integrating research ex- periment datasets into digital libraries. However, opinion is divided over the extent to which social software tools are being used by the research community. Butler, (2005) for a recent article in Nature, conducted interviews with researchers working across science disciplines and concluded that social software applications are not being used as widely as they should in research, and that too many researchers see the formal publication of journal and other papers as the main means of communication with each other.
Though designed as systems for knowledge discovery, the majority of digital libraries operate from the traditional expert model. Subject experts create content, digital library experts provide ac- cess to it, and individual users consume it. Very few systems have been built with an architecture that encourages users to create content, associate it with collection items, or share their impressions with other users. Providing digital library users read-access to collections is the traditional finish line. Providing them write-access – the ability to append content to that in a digital collection – is something else entirely.
CONCLUSION
In an era of changing institutions, libraries need to examine what their missions have been in the past, and how they can concentrate on the part of their core mission that is not repetitive of what other institutions do. Librarians need to find the parts of their core mission that will be sustainable in a changed environment.
The library is an integral part of the society that surrounds it. It is shaped and changed by many of the same forces that shape other types of institu- tions. Librarians need to recognize the changes that have already taken place in libraries, and to be aware of the ways in which broader societal changes are affecting other institutions. Then (rather than sitting idly by and passively observing the evolution of the library as an institution) they need to use this knowledge to actively reshape the library. If librarians do not become involved in this reshaping, key principles from librarianship may disappear in the library of the future.
Because many library functions will migrate to other environments (and because libraries are affected by the society around them), librarians must resist the types of changes that threaten basic principles such as equal access to information and fair use. They need to realize the disadvantages of mass delivery of library services and be wary
of moving services outside the local arena. And they need to be concerned about issues such as pay-per-use, privacy, cultural diversity, and the consolidation of electronic content owners and distributors.
Certainties about the future are nearly impos- sible, however, technology will play a large role in the library of the future. And there are many ways that the library can use technology to advance its mission. But before plunging ahead, some perspective should be placed on our so-called
“Age of Information.”
The library’s collection will change, becom- ing more interactive and fully accessible. The library’s services will change, focusing more on the facilitation of information transfer and infor- mation literacy rather than providing controlled access to it. It is virtual reality of the library, a place where one can not only search for books and journals, but interact with a community, a librarian, and share knowledge and understand- ing with them.
Despite this change fitting so well with the history of libraries and their mission, it is still a major paradigmatic shift for librarianship to open not just access to their catalogs and collections, but access to their control.
Finally, rest assured that print resources will not disappear. They are too extensive, authorita- tive and well organized. Librarians love to show students how to save 20 minutes in the library with just an hour or two of searching on the Web.
Social computing, or Web 2.0, operates in much the same way. Whether via links, tags, social bookmarks, comments, ratings or other means, providing users the means to create, share and interact around content typifies the Web 2.0 ap- proach. Most instances of Web 2.0 operate from a model of aggregate peer authority. Most critically, knowledge discovery and transfer is no longer restricted to a model of one expert creator to many consumers. In Web 2.0, consumers are creators, who can add their voices to both expert and non- expert claims. Users get the benefit of multiple
perspectives and can evaluate claims in the best tradition of participative, critical inquiry.
This chapter has covered a lot of ground. It has looked at Web 2.0, tried to separate out some of the sense from the sensational, reviewed the technologies involved and highlighted some of the issues and challenges that this poses to higher education. This is a complex and rapidly evolving area and this chapter can, perhaps inexorably, seem to raise as many questions as it answers.
Libraries are not untouchable to the commu- nity forces re-shaping other institutions. Library rapidly evolves into something that looks quite different than it did just a few decades ago, it is significant that librarians not only become aware of this advancement, but that they actively mediate to help adapt the institution in ways that are steady with the core operation of libraries. Changes to libraries are certain, and if librarians do not get actively involved in shaping those changes, it is likely that the new age library will carry very few of the core missions and values that have histori- cally been associated with libraries.
REFERENCES
Abram, S. (2005). Web 2.0 — huh?! library 2.0, li- brarian 2.0. Information Outlook, 9(12), 44–46.
Al-Khalifa, H. S., & Davis, H. C. (2006). Harness- ing the wisdom of crowds: how to semantically annotate Web resource using folksonomies. In Proceedings of IADIS Web Applications and Re- search 2006 (WAR2006). Retrieved from http://
eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13158/
Alexander, B. (2006, March/April). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44.
Amsen, E. (2006). Who Benefits from Science Blogging? Hypothesis Journal, 4(2).
Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand. London:
Random House Business Books.
Ashlin, A., & Ladle, R. (2006). Environmental Science Adrift in the Blogosphere. Science, 312(5771), 201. doi:10.1126/science.1124197 Beer, D., & Roger, B. (2007). Sociology and of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. So- ciological Research Online, 12(5). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html.
Beresford, P. (2007). Web Curator Tool. Ariadne, 50.
Berners-Lee, T. (1998). Realizing the potential of the Web. In Lloyd, P., & Boyle, P. (Eds.), Web- Weaving. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J., Shadbolt, N.,
& Weitzner, D. (2006). Creating a science of the Web. Science, 313(5788), 769–771. doi:10.1126/
science.1126902
Berube, L. (2007). On the Road Again: The next e-innovations for public libraries? Retrieved from http://www.bl.uk/about/cooperation/pdf/
einnovations.pdf
Besser, H. (1995d). From Internet to Information SuperHighway. In Brook, J., & Boal, I. A. (Eds.), Resisting the Virtual Life: The Culture and Poli- tics of Information (pp. 59–70). San Francisco:
City Lights.
Borgman, C. (2003). Personal digital libraries:
creating individual spaces for innovation. In NSF/
JISC Post Digital Library Futures Workshop, June 15-17, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~dlwkshop/paper_borg- man.html
Borgman, C. L. (1996). Social aspects of digital libraries. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://is.gseis.ucla.edu/research/dl/UCLA_DL_
Report.html
Borgman, C. L. (1999). What are Digital Librar- ies? Competing Visions. Information Processing
& Management, 35(3), 227–243.
Breeding, M. (2006). Web 2.0? let’s get to web 1.0 first. Computers in Libraries, 26(5), 30–33.
Butler, D. (2005, December 1). Science in the web age: Joint efforts. Nature, 438, 548–549.
doi:10.1038/438548a
Butler, D. (2006, March 14). The scientific Web as Tim originally envisaged. Tutorial session on Web 2.0 in Science, Bio-IT world Conference.
Casey, M. (2006a, January 3). Born in the bib- lioblogosphere. LibraryCrunch., 2006.
Casey, M. (2006b). LibraryCrunch: bringing you a library 2.0 perspective.
Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0.’ Cites and Insights, 6. Retrieved from http://
cites.boisestate.edu/civ6i2.pdf
Day, M. (2003). Collecting and Preserving the World Wide Web, Version 1.0. JISC: Bristol, UK.
Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_
documents/archiving_feasibility.pdf
DELOS. (2007). The DELOS Digital Library Ref- erence Model: Foundations for Digital Libraries, version 0.96. Retrieved from http://www.delos.
info/files/pdf/ReferenceModel/DELOS_DLRef- erenceModel_096.pdf
Dempsey, L. (2006, April). Libraries and the Long Tail: Some Thoughts about Libraries in a Network Age. D-Lib Magazine, 12(4). Retrieved from http://
www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/dempsey/04dempsey.
html. doi:10.1045/april2006-dempsey
FaceBook. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
facebook.com/
Flickr. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.flickr.
com/
Fountain, R. (2005). Wiki Pedagogy. Dossiers Pratiques, Profetic. Retrieved from http://www.
profetic.org:16080/dossiers/dossier_imprimer.
php3?id_rubrique=110
Frappr. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.
frappr.com/
Frey, J. G. (2006). Free The Data. WWW 2006 Panel Discussion, Edinburgh, UK, March 25, 2006. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.
ac.uk/38009/
Gawrylewski, A. (2008). Library 2.0: Secrets from science librarians that can save you hours of work. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.
com/2008/11/1/82/1/
Glogoff, S. (2006). The LTC wiki: experiences with integrating a wiki in instruction. In Mader, S. L. (Ed.), Using Wiki in Education.
Gudiva, V., Raghavan, V., Grosky, V., & Kasana- gottu, R. (1997). Information Retrieval on the World Wide Web. IEEE Internet Computing, 1(5), 58–68. doi:10.1109/4236.623969
Guy, M. (2006). Wiki or Won’t He? A Tale of Public Sector Wikis. Ariadne, 49. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/guy/.
Habib, M. (2006). Conceptual model for academic library 2.0. Michael Habib’s weblog on library and information science. Retrieved from http://
mchabib.blogspot.com/2006/06/conceptual- model-for-academic-library.html
Herry, R., & Powell, A. (2006). Digital Reposito- ries Roadmap: looking forward. UKOLN. http://
www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/publications/road- map-200604/rep-roadmap-v15.pdf
JISC Technology and Standards Watch. (2007).
Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.blyberg.
net/2006/08/18/go-go-google-gadget/
Kelly, B. (2002). Archiving the UK domain and UK websites. In Proceedings of Web-archiving:
managing and archiving online documents and records, London, March 25, 2002.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Learning activities on the move. In Handheld learning conference, 12th Oct 2006, London. Podcast retrieved from http://www.handheldlearning.co.uk.
Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., & Payette, S. (2005).
What is a digital library anyway? Beyond search and access in the nsdl [Electronic Version].
D-Lib Magazine. Retrieved from doi:10.1045/
november2005-lagoze
Laningham, S. (Ed.). (2006). Tim Berners-Lee.
Podcast retrieved from http://www-128.ibm.com/
developerworks/podcast/
Leonard, G. D. (1993). Multiculturalism and library services. New York: Haworth Press.
Levy, S., & Stone, B. (2006). The New Wisdom of the Web. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12015774/site/news- week/page/5/
Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
LibraryThing. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.
librarything.com/
Liu, Y., Myers, J., Minsker, B., & Futrelle, J.
(2007). Leveraging Web 2.0 technologies in a Cyberenvironmnt for observatory-centric envi- ronmental research. Presented at The 19th Open Grid Forum (OGF19), Jan 29th – Feb 2nd 2007, North Carolina, USA. Retrieved from http://www.
semanticgrid.org/OGF/ogf19/Liu.pdf
Masanes, J. (2006). Web Archiving. Berlin: Spring- er-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-46332-0
Miller, P. (2005a). Do libraries matter?: The rise of library 2.0 [White Paper]. Talis. Retrieved from http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/
DoLibrariesMatter.pdf
Miller, P. (2005b, October). Web 2.0: building the new library. Ariadne, 45. Retrieved from http://
www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/.
Miller, P. (2006, January 31). Introducing the Library 2.0 gang. Recorded telephone confer- ence as part of the Talking with Talis podcast series. Retrieved from http://talk.talis.com/ar- chives/2006/02/introducing_the.html
Miller, P. (2006a). Coming together around library 2.0: a focus for discussion and a call to arms.
D-Lib Magazine, 12(4). Retrieved from http://
www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/miller/04miller.html.
doi:10.1045/april2006-miller
Miller, P. (2006b). Library 2.0 - the challenge of distruptive innovation [White Paper]. Talis.
Retrieved from http://www.talis.com/resources/
documents/447_Library_2_prf1.pdf
Mitchell, E., & Gilbertson, K. (2008). Using Open Source Social Software as Digital Library Interface. D-Lib Magazine, 14(3/4). doi:10.1045/
march2008-mitchell
MySpace. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
myspace.com/
Notess, G. R. (2006). The terrible twos: web 2.0, library 2.0, and more. Online, 30(3), 40–42.
O’REILLY. T. (2003, April 6). The Architecture of Participation. ONLamp.com. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3017
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K.
(2006). Social Software and Learning. Bristol, UK: FutureLab. Retrieved from http://www.
futurelab.org.uk/research/opening_education/
social_software_01.htm
Placing, K., Ward, M., Peat, M., & Teixeira, P.
(2005). Blogging Science and science educa- tion.
Renda, M. E., & Straccia, U. (2005). A personal- ized collaborative digital library environment: A model and an application. Information Process- ing & Management, 41(1), 5. doi:10.1016/j.
ipm.2004.04.007
Rogers, A. (2006, September). Get Wiki with it.
Wired, 14(9), 30–32.
RSS. (file format). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(protocol) Schatz, B. R., & Chen, H. (1999). Digital Librar- ies: Technological Advances and Social Impacts (Guest Editors’ Introduction). IEEE Computer, 32(2), 45–50. doi:.doi:10.1109/2.745719
Shanhi, R. (2006). Web 2.0: data, metadata, and interface. Retrieved from http://www.rashmis- inha.com/archives/05_08/web2-data-metadata- interface.html
Skipper, M. (2006). Would Mendel have been a blogger? Nature Reviews. Genetics, 7, 664.
doi:10.1038/nrg1957
Stanley, T. (2006). Web 2.0: Supporting Library Users. QA Focus, UKOLN. Retrieved from http://
www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/ briefings/
briefing-102/briefing-102-A5.doc
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Am- ateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 Swan, A. (2006). Overview of scholarly com- munication. In Jacobs, N. (Ed.), Open Access:
Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects.
Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing.
Tuck, J. (2005b.) Creating Web Archiving Services in the British Library. DLF Fall Forum, Nov 9, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.diglib.org/fo- rums/fall2005/ presentations/tuck-2005-11.pdf.
Tuck, J. (2005a, November 24). Collection Development and Web Publications at the Brit- ish Library. PowerPoint presentation at Digital Memory, Tallin. Retrieved from http://www.nlib.
ee/html/yritus/digital_mem/24-2-tuck.ppt Tuck, J. (2007). Author’s notes. In Memories for Life: the future of our pasts, British Library, London, Dec 12th 2006. Retrieved from http://
www.memoriesforlife.org/events.php
Tudhope, D., Koch, T., & Heery, R. (2006). Termi- nology Services and Technology: JISC state of the art review. UKOLN/JISC: Bristol, UK. Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/terminology/JISC- review2006.html
Van der Wal, T. (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://www.
vanderwal.net.
Varmazis, C. 2006. Web 2.0: Scientists Need to Mash It Up. BIO-IT World.com. http://www.
bio-itworld.com/newsitems/2006/april/04-06- 06-news-web2
Varnum, K. (2006). RSS4Lib: Innovative ways libraries use RSS. Retrieved from http://blogs.
fletcher.tufts.edu/rss4lib/
WikiBios. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
wikibios.com/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
wikipedia.com/
Chapter 7
Information Preservation and Information Services
in the Digital Age
Manisha Saksena Independent Scholar, USA
INTRODUCTION
As developed for more than 200 years, academic libraries have generally been designed first and foremost as a place to collect, access and preserve print collections. To enter and use them was con- sidered privilege. Despite their handsome exteriors
the interior spaces were often dim and confining.
The buildings were difficult to navigate and special- ized services and collections were inaccessible to all but the serious scholar. Building planning and design of these libraries were primarily devoted to the preservation and security of materials and to the efficiency of the library collection services.
Prime space was routinely reserved for processing materials.
ABSTRACT
In the digital world, library services need to be transformed utilizing the advancements possible due to that automation and machine-to-machine communication of information. In this chapter prime focus is laid upon the need of digitization and how to achieve it effectively and appropriately. The strategies for digitization have also been discussed at reasonable length. The issues debated are digital decay as against paper decay, accessibility interpretation in digital world, utility of e-journals, gray content boom, problems of access to excess, human dependence of information sharing and collaboration, dis- intermediation. In this chapter adequate care has been taken to visualize the importance of traditional conservation as well. The main emphasis is on the spirit of collaboration and skill to take initiative for digitization project. It has been repeatedly mentioned that institutional collaborations at national and international level have given more fruitful results in the area of digitization. This chapter shows the changed picture of librarianship in digital environment along with the change in user perspectives and service perspective.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-767-1.ch007