Web 2.0 Course this Summer at University of Western Ontario

Web 2.0 is slowly emerging in the LIS curricula. Amanda Etches-Johnson, the User Experience Librarian at McMaster University Library, is teaching an innovative course at the University of Western Ontario LIS school called LIS 757: Social Software and Libraries. Here is a brief description of what the class entails:

The term “social software” has been applied to Web-based software tools that facilitate communication, collaboration, and network/community-building. This course will explore social software applications such as blogs, RSS, wikis, social bookmarking, tagging, and online social networks within the context of library services.

What do you think? Is it time that LIS faculties make Web 2.0 courses mandatory, or at least integrated into the curricula? Here is a schedule of the weekly topics.

• Week 1: Introduction to social software
• Weeks 2 & 3: Blogs - introduction to technology, terminology & software options. Discussion of blog content, design, usability, and library case studies.
• Weeks 4 & 5: RSS - introduction to RSS technology and specifications. Discussion of RSS trends and current issues, review of RSS aggregators, hands-on, and library case studies.
• Week 6: Wikis – technology, software options, hands-on, and library case studies.
• Week 7-8: Social bookmarking, tagging, folksonomies – technology, trends and current issues, hands-on, and case studies.
• Week 9-10: Online communities and social networks – trends and current issues, exploration of various online communities, hands-on, library case studies.
• Week 11: Gaming and virtual worlds.
• Weeks 12-13: best practices, discussion, evaluation.

Search Engines for '06

Search engine guru Phil Bradley has written an excellent column about the latest and greatest search engines in 2006. I've been keeping track of Mr. Bradley's blog, and it's a hub of fantastic information geared towards librarians, information staff, information professionals and web designers. Here is an excert of his article on Ariadne:

It's very easy simply to concentrate on the 'Big Four' search engines - Ask, Google, Live and Yahoo, while missing out on what is happening elsewhere. I know that I'm as guilty of that as anyone else and so for this column I thought I would look back over 2006 and see which search engines have come to my attention, what I think of them, and see how well they have actually fared. This is of course by no means a comprehensive list, and I will inevitably have missed out some but I hope I will have caught the main contenders.

My search engine of the year? Cha Cha. Why? I've written a post about it a while back ago. It's a superb compliment to searching for those "needle in a haystack" type reference inquiries.

Top 10 Library Blogs

I have ten bloggers that I follow. To me, they are the future of librarianship. Their blogs are not just random musings, but instead are thoughtful, reflective, and fresh in content. In my opinion, these blogging librarians represent the next generation of the profession: they are creative, technologically savvy, and passionate about what they do. You can easily tell that they do this truly because they love it.

(10) Blog on the Side - Darlene Fichter, Data Library Coordinator at the University of Saskatchewan, never fails to offer fascinating insight into the technological side of the information profession. Each post offers a little something different. Hence, it makes my top 10.

(9) McMaster University Library - This one's kind of unfair. A university librarian shouldn't be ranked so highly. (Doesn't he better things to do?) And that's absolutely why Jeffrey Trzeciak offers such an exciting blog. He gives us a glimpse of the inner workings of a university librarian's viewpoint. Indeed, there is management-speak, but underneath the marketing and formality, is hidden a fabulous hub of fascinating ideas and fabulous vision of Library 2.0.

(8) Michael Habib - I'm just astounded at how far Mr. Habib will go. The sky's the limit for this man. And he's only just finished his MLS a few months ago. I consider Habib to be one of the foremost experts of Library 2.0 theory, as he wrote his dissertation on it.

(7) Library Crunch - Michael Casey's blog about Library 2.0-related issues in LIS. Casey is the progenitor of the the term "Library 2.0" and not surprisingly, his blog offers the most innovative insights into the profession.

(6) davidrothmman.net - Very highly technology-charged blog with superb insight into the latest medical library-related happenings.

(5) Vancouver Law Librarian - Humorous and enlightening, he offers more of a tech-related posts in the legal information profession.

(4) Meredith Farkas - One of the up-and-coming stars in the library world, Meredith has already published articles, contributes frequently to the blogosphere with thoughtful analysis, and even built the inaugural Five Weeks to a Social Library free online course for working librarians.

(3) Krafty Librarian - Michelle Kraft is in my mind, one of the top health librarians in the field, and her blog posts indicate her knowledge and passion for her profession. She is also very updated on the technology side of her area of librarianship, which is a challenge, since hospital libraries are not often the most receptive places for technology due to data privacy.

(2) The Google Scholar Blog - This one's definitely a biased decision; but one which I don't think is overly so. I am confident that many will agree with me that the information in this blog not only serves the medical community, but the information profession. The Google Scholar is on sabbatical on the moment, but his year of material is worth the price of admission alone.

(1) Tame the Web - I rank according to the following criteria: visually creative inteface; length of existence; originality of posts; and quantity/quality of feedback. Michael Stephens, a professor and professional librarian, has a blog that meets all of these criteria. It's definitely worth checking out.

I believe blogging is a new beginning for librarians; whereas in the past, discourse was confined to monthly journal articles, which could only draw response sporadically through conferences and workshops and the occasional phonecall, the blogosphere has transformed and leveled the playing field. Librarians are actually ahead of the game now; we can exchange our views within seconds. I'm proud to be apart of this profession, and excited about where it's going.

An Early Web 2.0 Definition

Although most people identify with Tim O'Reilly's "What Is Web 2.0Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software" as the foremost definition of Web 2.0, one article worth taking notice of is Paul Graham's "Web 2.0" in November 2005, just a month after O'Reilly's article came out. Shorter and simpler in scope than O'Reilly's biblical explanation, Graham's definition nonetheless offers an equally salient view of Web 2.0. Graham asserts that regardless of new technologies, there is common thread: Web 2.0 means using the web the way it's meant to be used. The "trends" we're seeing now are simply the inherent nature of the web emerging from under the broken models that got imposed on it during the Dot-com Bubble.

Here are Graham's main points about Web 2.0:

(1) Ajax - Short for "Javascript now works," Ajax programming allows web-based applications to work much more like desktop ones. A whole new generation of software is being written to take advantage of Ajax. There hasn't been such a wave of new applications since microcomputers first appeared. Even Microsoft sees it, but it's too late for them to do anything more than leak "internal" documents designed to give the impression they're on top of this new trend.

(2) Democracy - Even amateurs can surpass professionals, when they have the right kind of system to channel their efforts, whether it's the news or academic writing. Wikipedia may be the most famous. The most dramatic example of Web 2.0 democracy is not in the selection of ideas, but their production. The top links on are often links to individual people's sites rather than to magazine articles or news stories.

(3) Don't Maltreat Users - During the Bubble a lot of popular sites were quite high-handed with users. And not just in obvious ways, like making them register, or subjecting them to annoying ads. The very design of the average site in the late 90s was an abuse. Many of the most popular sites were loaded with obtrusive branding that made them slow to load and sent the user the message: this is our site, not yours. Because sites were offering free things, companies felt they needed to make users jump over hoops of fire to get them. Web 2.0 frowns upon that mentality.

BCLA Conference: Day #2

Day #2 of the BCLA Conference has just wrapped up. Once again, the sessions were fascinating and the catering first class. I'm having a wonderful time. Highlight of the day was the session on The Electronic Health Library of BC (eHLbc): Expanding Access to Health Information Trends. I thought I needed to take a break from Web 2.0, and luckily I did because this session reinforced my education about the need for collaboration and cooperation in order to bring the best information services available for users. After all, as librarians, isn't it our duties to gather, organize, and disseminate the best information possible at the quickest possible time possible? Hence, libraries of the future are best served by collaborative action and pooling of resources. British Columbia is only beginning to catch up, for after over two years of assiduous effort by a working group of academic and health librarians, in partnership with the BC Academic Health Council, the innovative provincial database consortia known as the Electronic Health Library of BC (eHLbc) went live on April 1, 2006.

It was a particularly interesting session in that it provided an account of the process that brought the eHLbc vision to life, such as creating a request for proposals, creating steering and planning committees, as well as identifying future steps that are being planned. In providing the entire BC academic and health care community with high quality, cost-effective, equitable and easily accessible health library resources that will support and improve practice, education and research, eHLbc appears to be taking a huge step for the health practitioners.

BCLA Conference: Day #1

Day #1 of the British Columbia Library Association Conference, Beyond 20/20: Envisioning the Future at the Hilton in Burnaby, BC has just been completed. The BCLA does a good job in cultivating the next generation of librarians and information specialists by offering volunteer work for paid conference hours: students at SLAIS and Langara's Library Tech program not only get valuable experience in behind-the-scenes organizing, but also gets much needed conference time that they otherwise likely wouldn't be able to afford.

Highlight of the day? Speaking with people from Andornot. In a twenty minute discussion, not only did I learn more about the consulting business, but also about the implementation of innovative technologies for library catalogues and databases. Andornot is a Vancouver, B.C. company that specializes in database design and application development, data conversion, search and report form design and optimization, web hosting, and training sessions.

What am I impressed about? Web 2.0 technologies. Rex Turgano, one of the consultants at Andornot, showed me some of the high-end (yet incredibly simple and straightforward) technologies that he uses for not only Andornot projects, but also his own personal hobbies. He showed me how easily a blog service such as Blogger or Moveable Type could be used as a full content management system. Hence, anyone with a little knowledge of HTML and creativity can easily maximize on the use of RSS feeds, a blog, as well as even wiki in "mashing" up together a homepage at very little cost.

A Master Definition

As promised, here's my analysis of Michael Habib's Master's thesis "Toward Academic Library 2.0: Development and Application of a Library 2.0 Methodology" paper after a more thoroughly careful reading a second time. Habib's thesis astutely asserts that Web 2.0 has seven main concepts. Here they are:

(1) The Read/Write Web - A term given to describe the main differences between Old Media (newspaper, radio, and TV) and New Media (e.g. blogs, wikis, RSS feeds), the new Web is dynamic in that it allows consumers of the web to alter and add to the pages they visit - information flows in all directions.

(2) The Web as a Platform - Better known as "perpetual beta," the idea behind Web 2.0 services is that they need to be constantly updated. Thus, this includes experimenting with new features in a live environment to see how customers react.

(3) The Long Tail - The new Web lowers the barriers for publishing anything (including media) related to a specific interest because it empowers writers to connect directly with international audiences interested in extremely narrow topics, whereas originally it was difficult to publish a book related to a very specific interest because its audience would be too limited to justify the publisher's investment.

(4) Harnessing Collective Intelligence - Google, Amazon, and Wikipedia are good examples of how successful Web 2.0-centric companies use the collective intelligence of users in order to continually improve services based on user contributions. Google's PageRank examines how many links points to a page, and from what sites those links come in order to determine its relevancy instead of the evaluating the relevance of websites based solely on their content.

(5) Network Effects - It is a concept which explains why social technologies benefit from an economy that awards value to the service as more people join the service. eBay is one example of how the application of this concept works so successfully.

(6) Core Datasets from User Contributions - Web 2.0 companies use to collect unique datasets is through user contributions. However, collecting is only half the picture; using the datasets is the key. These contributions are then organized into databases and analyzed to extract the collective intelligence hidden in the data. This extracted information is then used to extract collective knowledge that can be applied to the direct improvement of the website or web service.

(7) Lightweight Programming Models - The move toward database driven web services has been accompanied by new software development models that often lead to greater flexibility. In sharing and processing datasets between partners, this enables mashups and remixes of data. Google Maps is a common example as it allows people to combine its data and application with other geographic datasets and applications.

From Web 2.0 to Web 2.0

I've been reading up on Web 2.0-related material, and have noticed that although it appears to have somewhat disjointed viewpoints, they nonetheless point to a consensus. Over the next while, I will be analyzing these differences, and will come up with my own "theory" as to what Web 2.0 is (or is not). To start off, I'm going to compare two versions of the definitions of Web 2.0 from both ends of the chronological spectrum: an "old" entry written back in 2005 by Sharon Richardson and a "new" one by Michael Habib, a Master's thesis recently published in 2007 (in a later entry).

Here are Richardson's main points about Web 2.0.

(1) The Wisdom of the Crowds - Not only has it blurred the boundary between amateur and professional status, in a connected world, ordinary people often have access to better information than officials do. As an example, the collective intelligence of the evacuees of the World Trace Center towers saved numerous lives in the face of disobeying authority which told them to stay put.

(2) Digital Natives - Because a generation (mostly the under 25's) have grown up surrounded by developing technologies, those fully at home in a digital environment aren't worried about information overload; rather, they crave it.

(3) Internet Economics - Small is the new big. Unlike the past when publishing was controlled by publishers, Web 2.0's read/write web has opened up markets to a far bigger range of supply and demand. The amateur who writes one book has access to the same shelf space as the professional author.

(4) "Wirelessness" - Digital natives are less attached to computers and are more interested in accessing information through mobile devices, when and where they need it. Hence, traditional client applications designed to run on a specific platform, will struggle if not disappear in the long run.

(5) Who Will Rule? - This will be the ultimate question (and prize). As Richardson argues, whoever rules "may not even exist yet."

Introducing Google Maps (Personalized)

Google has gone ahead and just introduced to us a new feature which is eerily familiar to what a simple mashup can do: in fact, it's pretty much what a mashup is. Using Google Maps, Google has saved us the trouble of using API coding and programming and simply allowed us to personalize our own "Google Map." Give it a try: first, you need to have a theme (e.g. vacation areas you'd like to go to). Second, fill in the required information (addresses). Third, add photos, pictures, descriptions, anything you'd like to "customize" your map. Voila! A personalized map that you can share with your clients, acquaintances, friends, family, and just about anyone you can think of to. Yes, this is Web 2.0: we're doing just fine, thank you very much.

Wrapping Up on Five Weeks

The Five Weeks to a Social Library course wrapped up on March 17, 2007. In being the first free, grassroots, completely online course devoted to teaching librarians about social software and how to use it in their libraries, Five Weeks to a Social Library provided a free, comprehensive, and social online learning opportunity for librarians interested in learning more about Web 2.0 technologies.

The course’s strength was the very fact that it had appropriately used social software to run much of its content. Not only did it use a wiki (hosted by Drupal) as the platform for its main page, it also capitalized on blogs for allowing discussion virtually anytime anyone felt like posting a message; this allowed for a two-way communication among participants and instructors. Moreover, presentations creatively combined streaming audio, text chat, and presentation slides which truly made online learning an interactive experience; even better, much of the materials are archived for access, thus allowing anyone with an interest to take the course long after its completion, anytime and anywhere.

However, if there are drawbacks to the course, it would be some of the content. For a more experience user of social software, some of the course content might be considered somewhat basic. Because blogs, wikis, Flickr, and social bookmarking are becoming ever more commonly used, focusing too much on them runs the risk of narrowing social software to just these tools. What the course could have done was emphasize more on “theory” and “concepts” such as collective intelligence, open platform, open collaboration, than on the actual tools themselves.

With the advent of the so-called “Web 3.0” or semantic web, blogs and wikis will come and go and will likely be replaced with newer and even more advanced tools in the near future. While the scope of Five Weeks to a Social Library is certainly limited due to its relatively short time frame and also because it is meant to be an introduction of social software for the novice, I felt that the course could have provided a “glimpse” at things to come by offering a presentation or two from a more advanced “techie”, be it a librarian or not, that would have summarized that we are only on the cusp of something great, and that social software phenomenon will look vastly different even a year from now, let alone many years from now.

Nonetheless, the course was an ambitious first step for providing the necessary knowledge that librarians need to advance the profession and provide better services for patrons. While it could have done more to maximize its potential, the course nonetheless passes with flying colours in terms of meeting its goals and expectations from Day 1 when it had announced such an exciting venture of an entirely free online course for anyone interested in social software.

Happy April Fool's

The good folks at Google pulled a wonderfully brillant and witty April Fools joke which certainly pulled my leg. The joke is Google TiSP, a new FREE in-home wireless broadband service that includes a self-installation kit, which includes setup guide, fiber-optic cable, spindle, wireless router and installation CD. What do you need to do? Simple. A toilet. And a pair of gloves. Then you're ready for high speed internet. According to Google TiSP, actual speeds will vary, depending on network traffic and sewer line conditions. Users with low-flow toilets may simultaneously experience a saving-the-environment glow and slower-data-speed blues. Here's more:

How can Google offer this service for free? We believe that all users deserve free, fast and sanitary online access. To offset the cost of providing the TiSP service, we use information gathered by discreet DNA sequencing of your personal bodily output to display online ads that are contextually relevant to your culinary preferences, current health status and likelihood of developing particular medical conditions going forward. Google also offers premium levels of service for a monthly fee.

Best of all, there is also great technical service support, including on-site technical support in the event of "backup problems, brownouts and data wipes."

Let's Build a Mashup (Or at least see how one works)

Let's take a look at how a mashup works. Take a look at this one. This Proto mashup brings Craigslist, Yahoo! Pipes, Yahoo! Maps, and Microsoft Outlook together into an effective apartment hunting and tracking mashup application.

Introducing Web 10.0?

Are you still confused about Web 2.0? Well, it's time to move on to the next stage, according to some. How about Web 10.0? Can you imagine? Ray Kurzeil, DeWitt Clinton, and Nova Spivak have, and they see a very different Web than the one we're using right now.

To date, next to Tim O'Reilly's seminal article, DeWitt Clinton's "Web 2.0" offers the best and most concise definition of Web 2.0. (It's really well worth a read). But he also offers an intriguing glimpse at the Web many years into the future. What will the world and the Web will look like in 2046? Imagine this:

All data . . . can be instantaneously streamed anywhere at anytime. Your very experiences, your senses, perhaps even your thoughts, will be broadcast and archived for anyone to download and view. All human knowledge will be publicly accessible — all music, all art, all media, all things. The distinction between human thought and computer thought will be blurred. We will be part of the network, the network will be part of us. We will be the hive mind, and we collectively will have evolved into something quite unlike anything the world has ever seen.

Mashups for Libraries

I recently published an article on mashups, "An introduction to mashups for health librarians" in the Volume 28, Number 1, Winter 2007 Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association. This paper is based on a presentation I made in December.

So what has changed since then? Certainly not my amazement, if you ask me for my opinion. In terms of technology, mashups are getting more sophisticated by the day. As users are increasingly getting a stronger grasp of the power that mashups provide, the world of mashups is inevitably evolving into more sophisticated ventures. Take the following, for example: Translation Services Via SMS. Using this service, you can send an SMS to translate using BabelFish between English and Spanish and receive a call or SMS with the translation.

The New Health Librarian

At SLAIS' 2nd Annual Job Fair, I had a wonderful chat with health librarian, Karen MacDonell, Co-Manager of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC Library. She gave me some fascinating insight this area of librarianship. Here are the highlights:
(1) Personality - Dreamweaver will come and go, but a person's ability to go out for coffee and talk about vacation planning doesn't. In other words, the most important trait for finding the right job candidate comes down to interpersonal skills. What great advice; very practical and makes common sense. Inner traits can't be taught, but everything else can.

(2) Marketing - Librarians need to know how to market their libraries in order to continue funding. Particularly for smaller, special libraries, fundraising is ever so important. Because libraries are forever in danger of being closed down due to budget cuts, librarians need the skills to continue promoting and reminding everyone why their library is important.

(3) Workload - Longer hours, more librarians, less clerical staff. There's increasingly a hierarchical flattening of library organizations. Because librarians are doing more and more, more librarians are getting hired. The flipside of this is that less library assistants are hired to offset these costs unfortunately.

(4) Outreach - Less people are coming to the library, meaning librarians are increasingly required to take the information to the user. This also means that there is increasingly less need of paper (books and journals); rather, users are increasingly asking for PDF's and other electronic documents that can be accessed anywhere and anytime. Hence, wireless technology is increasingly being relied on by users, particularly to facilitate the need for up-to-the-minute information, usually on PDA's. The "wireless" librarian? That's right: it's just around the corner. . .

E-Learning 2.0

I'm having an absolute blast learning about social software through the Five Weeks to a Social Library course. Although I'm not one of the participants, it really doesn't matter, because all of the materials are archived. It "feels" real-time, with Power Point presentations simultaneously running with audio discussions and online chatting.

As Stephen Downes puts it, this is "E-Learning 2.0." And what is most fascinating is that it is deeply intertwined with Web 2.0 technologies. Moreover, in the world of e-learning, the closest thing to a social network is a community of practice, where it is characterized by "a shared domain of interest" where "members interact and learn together" and "develop a shared repertoire of resources." But not only is it user-centred and based on collective intelligence, it's also convenient. What better way to learn than in the comfort of my desk, mug of coffee in hand, sitting back, and relaxing to the rhythm of expert opinion?

Library Two Point Oh?

Wendy Schultz, a Futures Studies scholar and Political Scientist, has written a fascinating article about Library 2.0 and the future of libaries. "To a Temporary Place in Time . . ." proposes four stages of libraries: (1) Library 1.0 being commodity; (2) Library 2.0 is product; (3) Library 3.0 being service; and (4) Library 4.0 as service.

Most people are probably rolling their eyes at the "point oh" phenomenon. But I say, good, let's start visualizing and get creative. This is a perfect way to propel the library and information professions to that next level. How to build on the current library model and make it even better. Let's stop worrying about semantics, and start focusing on possibilities.

Take a look

Web 2.0 in action. What is Brooklyn College Library doing differently? Take a look at its impressive entry into the social software wave. Some might argue that the library is doing nothing more than riding 'fad' in technology. But is it? Or is it merely extending its reach into the sphere of its young users, connecting them through an online social space, and encouraging participation and communication through Myspace? Should we see this as outreach into cyberspace? Is it Library 2.0? The clues appear to say so...

Move Over Google

With Web 2.0 comes social searching, a type of search engine that determines the relevance of search results by considering the interactions or contributions of users. Social searching takes many forms, ranging from simple shared bookmarks or tagging of content with descriptive labels to more sophisticated approaches that combine human intelligence with computer algorithms. One search engine that has impressed me to no ends is ChaCha. Why?

Using ChaCha's Search with a Guide feature, your query is sent to a real person who is skilled at finding information on the internet and knowledgable on the subject at hand so that you get the few exact results you want, not the millions of results you don't. The more ChaCha is used, the "smarter" and "faster" ChaCha becomes. Indexing all the questions that are asked and associating them with the search engines and resources used by Guides, and the links visited by the users, ChaCha knows where to look and what the best human-approved resources are for each question or topic. Indeed, this kind of searching and type of search engine poses an interesting challenge to our friends at Google. How reliable are the guides? Here's where ChaCha is creative:

The primary reason is that we pay them and their pay is directly related to their performance. At the end of every session, you can select between one and five stars to rate their performance. While we expect you to be honest when rating a Guide, ChaCha can also detect any needlessly malicious ratings.

Welcome to Search 2.0, which uses third-generation search technologies designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models. User preferences + collaboration + collective intelligence + a rich user experience = Search 2.0.

Mashups for '07

Doug Steiner's "Party Everday" in the Report on Business laments that teenagers use newfangled technology to gather in groups fast, so why don't businesses? Here is what he proposes:

I dream of a Lavalife-like site to help me find a doctor. Provisioning of actual physician visits would be done through optimal distance and availability computation: The site would give me a list of doctors in my neighbourhood and key information like their areas of expertise and hours preferences. And a picture and astrological sign for each one, of course.

Doug, you spoke too soon. Here is what one prototype looks like: Berkeley Area Doctors by Chad Dickerson. It's a mashup.

The Creative Librarian?

Shelley Hourston's "Creativity and the resilient health librarian" offers a fascinating look into one aspect of librarianship which is underappreciated: creativity. Librarians do a lot, especially with limited resources in health libraries, including cataloguing (descriptive and subject analysis); reference interviews; collection development; database searching; justifying the existence of the library, just to name a few.

Librarians are professional creative thinkers, from finding better ways to display new books on the shelves to adjusting to budget cuts. Well, then, how do you nurture creativity? It can be done, according to Hourston, as her interviews with working information professionals revealed that most creativity stems from recreational activities as writing, painting, drawing, sculpture, crafts, and knitting. It's worth a read!

The Key to a Librarian's Success in the 21st Century

Intriguingly, I discovered that an article, "The Key to a Librarian's Success" in Information Outlook eerily resembles the posting that I had made earlier about the definition of a great librarian. Is this coincidence? Or did I just happen to luck out in finding such a superior teacher? Regardless, this is worth a definite read. Here are the main traits of the 21st century librarian:
(12) Humility

(11) Salesmanship

(10) Communication

(9) Perceptiveness

(8) Self-confidence

(7) Flexibility

(6) Responsibility

(5) Persistence

(4) Creativity

(3) Trustworthiness

(2) Enthusiasm

(1) Passion

Greetings!

Library 2.0 has an interesting posting about using students as "greeters" for academic libraries in order to make patrons not only feel more comfortable in entering the library, but also to field and direct inquiries as a front-line staff. What a marvellous idea, and very much part of the Library 2.0 mantra, which is about innovation and user-centred creativity. What greeters can do is simply build on this, starting from the floor up.

Health Librarianship Internationale

Drawing from their combined experience in international activities and the published information available from selected library associations and related organizations, Bruce Madge and T. Scott Plutchak’s “The increasing globalization of health librarianship: a brief survey of international trends and activities” offers fascinating insights into the current developments in international health librarianship and describe some current themes. It’s worth a read. Here are the major points.

(1) Co-operation and partnership

Co-operation and partnerships have been key to libraries for a number of years. As budgets shrink, cooperative collection development has been more readily accepted as a policy.

(2) Open access

Radical changes in scholarly communication comprises a major area affecting all library services and not just those in the health sector. Much of the discussion in recent years has dealt with open access. The importance of this theme is emphasized by the fact that the British Government has even been included in the debate.

(3) Technology

The rapid growth and uptake of technology has had a massive impact on libraries over the last 20 years. The Internet has changed the way libraries access information, and the move to electronic publishing has caused major concerns for libraries as to whether to continue to take print journals or to move to electronic materials.

(4) Keeping ahead of the curve

The idea of horizon scanning has only recently appeared in the health-library sector in the UK as a recommendation of the ‘Future Proofing the Profession’ report. It is essential that health librarians and information professionals keep up to date with developments in key areas such as information technology.

But this is in a British context; has North American health librarianship caught up yet? I guess we'll find out.

Dent in the Web

Just when Web 2.0 was about to take off, a minor roadblock has been erected by Google when it announced recently that it has taken off its Google Search API off the market. Before, you could simply integrate the free coding with other content (and API's) to form a mashup in what is now popularly referred to the new Web 2.0, better searching, faster integration, larger social networks.

But with Google taking out this essential piece of software, as well as modifying its Google Maps API terms of use, is Google taking the horrendous mis-step of preventing the progress of the new web? Let's hope not. Without API's, we won't be able to use such applications such as this. And seeing that it's so near Christmas, it would be a shame, too. Ho ho ho.

Farewell to the Google Scholar

It is only proper that I make this posting on December 8th, which is the last day of the Google Scholar's blog before it goes on hiatus for a much deserved sabbatical. It has been my pleasure to have been the recipient of the Google Scholar's mentorship. Without any idea of what I was doing or where I was going, the Google Scholar showed me what it takes to be a librarian. Here is what I learned:

(10) Teaching - As he says so often, the profession has changed immensely over the last twenty years. Emphasis on teaching has never been as great as it is now, and that is one of the reasons why librarians must also be great teachers, which the Google Scholar is.

(9) Empathy - He treats his students and employees as he would a top-level administrator. He sees the profession not as a hierarchical ladder, but as a community where information flows as freely as emotions and thoughts. He stands up for his employees and colleagues, and puts his neck on the line for them. When he sees students in need, he doesn't think twice about phoning them and asking how they're doing during their late evening shifts.

(8) Networks - He believes in social networks, not for personal gain, but for collaboration and learning. The Scholar's reach in the library, academic, and medical community is far and wide. He reaches out, and connects people not only to information, but also to other people.

(7) Cooperation - He believes in librarians helping each other. He believes that equal opportunities exist for all, and hence, his support for such things as open-access, PubMed, and Google Scholar.

(6) Knowledge - The Google Scholar is one of the premiere information retrieval experts in the profession. More admirably, he believes in sharing his knowledge, which he does through his tireless writings on his blog and discussions with colleagues and students.

(5) Believing in oneself - As he tells all his students, self-confidence is the key to success. Although he offers opinions, when it really matters, he steps back and allows his mentees to think for themselves, for he knows they are ultimately the ones who control their own destinies. He creates pathways, and allows us to find our own destinations.

(4) Humour - The Google Scholar is also a performer and comedian. He can light up any audience with his lighthearted quips and creative improvisation, often at the most appropriate of times.

(3) Technology - If there is one thing that I learned from the Google Scholar, it is to keep up with technology. In the library profession, technology is important as ever, and is a key goal in helping maximize information resources for the users and patrons. Google, blogging, mashups, blikis, etc. They keep on coming, and the Google Scholar keeps on absorbing. Nothing gets by this man.

(2) Hard work - Paying your dues. That's what the Google Scholar's career is all about. As he so often tells us, he started out with no clear indication of where he was going. All he knew was that he wanted to be a health librarian in order to make a difference in people's lives. Through sheer determination and hard work, he has done just that. And much more.

(1) Passion - If there's one thing that defines the Google Scholar, it is passion, a pure love of librarianship. Regardless of how one performs and how knowledgeable one is, nothing can compensate for passion. He breathes and bleeds librarianship. His passion is contagious. He is not only a mentor and teacher, but also a true friend.

What's Wrong?

LibraryCrunch has just reported that the term "Library 2.0" is being considered for deletion in Wikipedia. It's caused a ruckus. Understandably, there is discomfort with the term. What is it? What does it mean? I've discussed in a previous post my attitudes towards Web 2.0, I have similar thoughts for Library 2.0. Although it's disconcerting to see the overreaction, it's also exciting to see that controversy is forcing us to reexamine our profession and what it constitutes. Let's see where Wikipedia takes us in the next while.

Library 2.0

Michael Habib's Master's degree thesis is released. With great anticipation comes great expectations. All are met. It's definitely worth a read. What do I think of Library 2.0? It's a nice catchy term, definitely part of the "2.0" wave. However, stripped down to its essence, the principles of Library 2.0 need to be adapted into the library setting. It's the natural progression of where the profession and its resources are heading. So why should we resist? Let's use the ideas which best serves the user.

Mashups for Librarians

I recently gave a presentation on mashups. People were interested, and most of all, they realized that there's a lot one can do with mashups. I believe that librarians and information professionals need to know what mashups are, particularly since they are an essential element of Web 2.0. A mashup thus does exactly what Web 2.0 technology is supposed to: they allow greater interactivity, more user control of information, user personalization, the development of online communities, and greater democratic management of information.

Why are mashups relevant for information professionals and librarians? Matthew Dames lists two reasons: First, social software tools such as mashups are the perfect opportunity to extend its reach beyond the library building, particularly in a time when there is real fear that patrons are no longer use reference services as vehemently as they once did. Second: job security. Social software tools such as mashups allow librarians to “reclaim” areas of influence and expertise in the organization that have been ceded to the IT department.

I'd add one more, and it's pretty obvious: the main goal of the health librarian (and all librarians, for that matter) is to serve his or her user. Mashups help achieve that goal, and then some.

Open Access = End of Publishing

Library 2.0 has just written an intriguing entry titled, The Coming End of Completed Publications. Indeed, Library 2.0's entry has an exclaimer which warns us it's too early to judge whether the end of publishing as we know it will occur. But Library 2.0 does pose some interesting scenarios in regards to how open access is slowly bringing in complexities to the game of printed publishing.

Marketing Open Access

Today, UBC librarian Hilde Colenbrander gave a fascinating presentation on open access. She pointed out that the "impact factor" plays a large hand in the OA movement. The reason why is that scholars have an incentive to publish in established and prestigious journals. For young scholars who want tenureship, they must get published in such journals, not in open access publications, freely available to all.

Heleen Gierveld's recent article, Considering a Marketing and Communications Approach for an Institutional Repository proposes an "8P's" as a strategy for promoting institutional repositories. This article complements a previous entry that I had made, and supports the idea that creativity is essential for the OA movement.

One thing Colenbrander said which stood out in my mind: research and development. With a hectic work schedule, most academic librarians simply do not have time for study and reflection on gigantic issues such as open access. Without support from their institutions, librarians simply cannot devote the proper attention necessary. But librarians are supposed to be at the forefront of this moment; they need more support than they are currently given.

NHL on Google

The wait is over. The National Hockey League (NHL) has paved the road for professional sports' entrance into open-access. Understandably, there will be skeptics who cringe at the thought of a corporate entertainment giant taking a plunge into the online environment, and making a profit at the same time. But the NHL has just made an agreement with Google Videos which allows entire broadcasts to be online. Hence, classics such as the Vancouver Canucks-New York Rangers' Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals can be seen in its entirety, or games that you missed from yesterday can be replayed at a click of a mouse.

But the NHL is making a bold move. By putting its games online, it has unwittingly joined the realm of open-access, which includes among other things, "open collaboration, open authoring, open platforming, and open searching for everyone." Whether this hurts its NHL Network cable broadcasts remains to be seen. (They are live events, compared to Google Video's 4 hour tape-delay). As a sports fan, this is an unbelievable day. As a proponent of Web 2.0, I am ecstatic. The champagne is flowing endlessly. Let the games begin!

Web 3.0? How about 4.0?

Not surprisingly, some people are disturbed with Web 2.0. What is it? What makes it so different from Web 1.0? What is Web 1.0? It is understandable that there is anxiety, coupled with a certain element of skepticism.

With that said, I introduce to you Web 3.0. What is it? Phil Wainewright, a technology expert, believes that Web 2.0 is but a "transitional" period proto-Web 3.0 stage, where the best is yet to come. What do I think? Be careful what you wish for. Sooner or later, Web XP will be the latest version of the web that you and I will be using...

Oh, So This Is A Systematic Review

Yesterday's session on systematic review searching was an eye-opener. It turns out that I've been doing systematic review searching the whole time, but never knew it! It's no wonder why researchers have kept on insisting that I keep a list of my search terms and databases in my literature searches. As an uninformed searcher, I had wondered why do they need it? They've got the articles, they're useful, why do they need to be so careful about such seemingly "unimportant" data?

I'll ask the question again: Why do we need systematic review searching? The reason, as Mimi Doyle of the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation reveals, is so that researchers can keep a tab of how much time they had spent on a project (for things like accounting audits). Not only that, as part of the scientific method, the experiment should have reproductibility, which means that everything from searching to the actual experimentation and apparatuses needs to be as documented as carefully as possible. This is a fascinating revelation: searching in the health sciences is every bit as scientific as the labs that go on each day. It's all part of the bigger picture
in healing.

The Tale of Two Professions

I recently went to a luncheon hosted by the Vancouver Association of Law Librarians (VALL) with whom the talented Eugene Barsky gave a talk on Wiki's. The similarities between medical librarianship and law librarianship caught my attention. After freshly returning from a conference in Seattle from the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association where I spoke to medical librarians about the salient issues of the day, I was intrigued to hear similar discussion echoed among law librarians (and technicians).

Conclusion? Things aren't so different between these two supposedly very different areas of librarianship. Social software, Web 2.0, recruitment, employment forecasts all came up during discussion. (In fact, Christina Tribe of Harper Grey tells me that 50% of her time is spent on medical databases and CISTI). One person who participated at the luncheon has a blog entry which has striking relevance to medical librarianship and echoes a similar problem. I'd like to share with you an excerpt:

So who must pay attention to this? Well first of all - VALL. We (I speak as a member of the Executive) have to prepare our membership. Mentoring and training are goingnto be more important than ever. Next up, UBC SLAIS. The legal bibliography course needs to be offered regularly, and we need to support it (be it Teresa Gleave or another local Librarian who takes on this huge task).

Replace the legal terms/people with medical terms/people and you'd find the above arguments to be highly relevant and interchangeable in both areas. In my opinion, because both professions - law and medicine - are so specialized, they require talented and creative individuals to fill its posts, especially one which requires information retrieval. Answer? Librarians of the future.

New Frontiers

At the PNC/MLA Conference in Seattle, Terry Henner, Associate Professor and Head of Information & Education Services of the Savitt Medical Library at theUniversity of Nevada School of Medicine, gave a fascinating presentation on a collaboration project between the Savitt Medical Library and a consortia of local public health organizations to build information sharing capacity into a regional obesityreuction initiative. His presentation highlighted how information technologies can support and enhance the activities of care providers, educators, and advocates who have entered into a regional coalition aiming at reducing obesity rates.

Two things particularly stood out for me. First was Henner's introduction of social software into the library environment. In using RSS to Javascript, a program that seamlessly integrates RSS feeds directly to the webpage, Henner's project removed the previous inhibitions of users about creating their own aggregators and feedreaders by doing the work for them, thus making the homepage more accessible and user-friendly.

Second, Henner left an indelible mark for me about the acceptance of new experimental technologies. In his conclusion, he makes clear the point that not everyone will accept what you think is integral: "Utility is in the eye of the beholder." What an excellent point. Simple, yet so often overlooked. We often want results right away -- but in doing so, we forget that it takes time and patience for others to follow. (However, "Resistance can be overcome" as he argues). Henner leaves us with what I thought was the best quote to take home with me: "Some success is better than none." A marvellous anecdote: if we create something out of nothing, then perhaps that itself is an achievement worthy of celebration.

Changing the Face of Searching?

Well, as you may have heard by now, Ms. Dewey is a brand new search engine that is taking a run at Google. Reviews are all over the blogosphere now. However, it's so unique that I'm going to hop onto the Blogosphere Express and offer my two cents:

(1) Interface - Well, what more can I say. It's definitely a diversion from Google's simplicity. There's more to look at, that's for sure. But I like it. It's fresh, dynamic, and interactive. The only drawback is that the search results are a bit cumbersome to navigate.

(2) Web 2.0-compatible - To date, there's still no search engine that makes witty comments, shows signs of moodiness, and has an interest in your searches. True, it's artificial, but it's still not a bad attempt at user interaction. When one types in a search term or phrase, Janina offers a commentary. If the question is bizarre enough, Janina might even perform a short skit.

(3) Effectiveness - In the end, the question is, can it do what it's supposed to do? I've done quite a few searches. It's definitely no Google. A little trick that I use to determine an engine's effectiveness is to try finding a journal article by simply by typing in the full (or partial) article title. Ms. Dewey unfortunately comes up short (but so does Yahoo! and MSN Live). Google still rules at the end of the day.

(4) A new type of search engine - The "traditional" search engine days of Google and Yahoo! are increasingly challenged by up and comers. The clustering search engines such as Clusty and Vivisimo are great tools; and the visual search engines like Kartoo are also great as well. And now we have the "interactive" search engine. What does this all mean? There's still a ways to go before Ms. Dewey can offer us searchers something substantial. Perhaps Janina can offer a witty remark to that.

Restful in Seattle

Sunny weather. Good food. Great people. Even greater conversations. Exactly what I experienced from a very successful and rewarding conference down in Seattle from the PNC/MLA Conference, "Mission in the Mountains." Still processing the vast amount of information absorbed from the speakers, presentations, and posters, I'm excited to present my take of the trip.

But what was my highlight of the conference? Definitely the Roundtable Luncheon where a group of highly motivated and curious librarians and information professionals talked about wikis, blogs, and RSS. I was asked what was Web 2.0. I've been blogging a great deal about social software and learning as much as I can about this fascinating topic, but when asked what it all means, I ironically stumbled for the right explanation, and was almost at a loss for words about Web 2.0 and its implications for an library and information centre setting? So much to say, where to begin?

I managed to summarize my ideas in less than three sentences, crunched with key terms as "user-centred," "open access," and "social interaction." More importantly, I stressed that Web 2.0 is not easily definable -- rather, it is "state of mind." Had I known that I would be asked for my opinion, I would have introduced to my colleagues a wonderful article by Jack Maness, "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries," which is fittingly published from an open-access journal. Web 2.0 is still in a fairly new, and experimental stage, and requires time for evolution. The best is yet to come. I hope that my message had got across the table. Maybe. Just maybe.

Library 2.0 -- An Experiment

I feel like we're all taking the same train. But more the merrier: all aboard. Library 2.0: An Academic's Perspectives has written a wonderful blog about an actual real-life example about a library that uses social software. This is what he writes:

There are some people who rightly sing the praises of the Ann Arbor District Library because its site is blog-based. However, blogs are restrictive relative to wikis in that the typical user cannot create an entry but only comment on it. In the library context, librarians are in control of their Web site content and users can only respond. This is valuable, to be sure, but in terms of radical trust (a Library 2.0 buzzword), it falls short.

This is a fascinating experiment. A blog is a good start - but wikis? Why not? I say, go for it. The possibilities are endless (IF designed properly). There are probably other library catalogues that are using social software features. Where are we going? Hopefully, to a more interactive, more accessible tool for users and patrons for all libraries and information systems. The game's still early, but it's already very promising from the looks of Ann Arbor District's brave, bold step forward.

To Blog, or Not to Blog, that is the Question

I'm a proponent of looking at both sides of a coin. While I'm a huge supporter of social software and its potential impacts on the information society, I am also interested in listening to the arguments against blogging and its potential controversies.

A few months ago, GeekNurse was shut down due to management concerns. The symptoms? "Management-concern-itis." According to blogosphere rumours, hospital managers could not stand an employee's public persona and growing following. Of course, blogging is a powerful social tool where online communities can share ideas and exchange commentaries, but can an organization be really threatened by one person's "cult" following? Can blogging really be so detrimental to a work place environment, particularly one that deals with health?

Let's hope that the controversial shut down of Geek Nurse does not set a trend. When personal homepages became possible in the early 1990's, the same jittery fears brewed in cyberspace. Employees were fired, scandals broke, and homepages hacked. But eventually, things died down, and in fact, so did personal homepages to a certain extent.

What is my take, you ask? Blogging is here to stay. Although it's still too early to tell what blogging will look like a few years from now, we're on the cusp of change and innovation, so my take is to stay tuned and stay alert. Personal homepages from commercial services did not work as well as blogging because as a Web 1.0 technology, homepages did not allow room for social interaction, while blogging does. However, blogging has yet to evolve to the point where it can be considered true Web 2.0. It's still a work in progress, which truly makes this is an exciting time for all.

Copyright Infringement, You Say?

I recently watched Birth of a Nation on Google Videos, and it was great. I could've rented it or purchased it, but instead of doing all that, I simply typed in the title and voila, 3 hours of history right within my grasp. (Google even entertains as well). While such a phenomen probably deserves a plethora of articles from a communications, information science, sociology, economics, business, and just about any disipline's view point, what is most pressing to me is its place in Web 2.0.

Doesn't it feel like something this good probably crosses some legal ramifications? According to GigaOM's post, yes. In fact, a number of Bollywood hits can be seen online right after its theatre release -- and it's a matter of time that it's going to get out of hand. But in the meantime, isn't it ironically strange that open access is challenging both studios and DVD piracy? I wonder how much Kung Fu Hustle costs out in the black market these days...

Milkshakes and IR's

Monica McCormack's freshly-written Master's thesis is really worth a read. Using business theory, she creatively weaves the proposal that libraries need to market and establish a brand name for insitutional repositories in order for them to succeed. Here is an excerpt:

Seeking to increase milkshake sales, a fast-food company interviewed customers they had identified as key to the "milkshake demographic." Based on that research, they changed their recipes, but sales remained about the same. Further research showed that 40% milkshakes were purchased early in the morning.

They learned that customers facing a long commute wanted a breakfast that would be both filling and easy to eat in the car. Bananas would not hold them until lunch; bagels and breakfast sandwiches were too messy. Milkshakes, despite their relative lack of nutritional value, served these consumers’ needs.

In Christensen’s language, the customers "hired" milkshakes to do a particular job. The company responded by providing milkshake dispensers in front of their counters, where customers could buy them with a simple swipe of a credit card, and created new flavors with chunks of fruit, making the product more fun to eat. Milkshake sales improved. The point of this story is that creators of a new product must ensure that is does what their customers need—and the needs assessment may reveal some surprises.

McCormick makes a strong case. Sometimes, we assume that open access is such an inherently good thing that it's a given that people will eventually come around and realize the future of publishing. Perhaps McCormick reminds us that before we reach that stage, we should explore possible avenues in welcoming others to join us first.

Earthbound

What is a mashup, you say? This is a mashup. Innovative. Simple. Functional. User-friendly. To view pictures or videos, just click on a country (Google maps) to reveal a filmstrip view of the images (Flickr) and videos (Youtube) that are available for that country. Since all one needs to do is to tap on the thumbnail so that the video starts playing right on the map, we never even need to leave the map interface. (How nice!)

As this example reveals, there's nothing very revolutionary about mashups. The technology is there. The real ingredients comprise a pinch of creativity and a cabinet of curiosity.

The Prowess of GahooYoogle

I was quite surprised when information scientist
Amanda Spinks told us at a talk that search engines usually have a 5% overlap in terms of hits. What this means is that searching is an art more than anything else -- what we come up with really depends on the tools, techniques, experience, and expertise of the searcher. (And dare I say, a certain element of luck, too).

Take a look at GahooYoogle, a nifty search engine which allows us to see results of both search engines, side-by-side. Does this make searching easier? Not really. In my opinion, if you want to do that, then go for a meta-search engine. But if you want to see how the magic of the Google algorithm works compared to another "normal" search engine which uses keyword searching, then try this out.

Do you notice something? One can simply type in the article's full title (or even parts of it, provided it's wrapped around with "quotations"), and wham! there you go, the first few hits will usually lead you to the full or abstract, whereas in a search engine such as Yahoo!, you'll have to work a lot harder to find what you're looking for.

Ah yes, what can't Google do? Another reason why it's still the information professional's best friend.

The Myth of Caduceus?

A majority of medical organizations employ a symbol of a short rod entwined by two snakes and topped by a pair of wings. Known as the "caduceus" or magic wand of the Greek god Hermes, conductor of the dead and protector of merchants and thieves, the caduceus came to be associated with a precursor of medicine, based on the Hermetic astrological principles of using the planets and stars to heal the sick in the 7th century.

However, recent medical observers and physicians have been critical of the symbol, for Hermes also happens to be the god that leads the dead to the underworld and is not only associated with wealth and commerce, but happens to be the patron of thieves (a larcenous figure in Greek mythology). Some medical purists suggest we should go back to the staff of Aesculapius, which is depicted as a single serpent coiled around a cypress branch.

In 2003, Wilcox and Whitham further ignited controversy in the medical community when they published an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, arguing that the design is derived not from the ancient caduceus of Hermes but from the printer’s mark of a popular 19th-century medical publisher. Because of this mishap, the modern caduceus became a popular medical symbol only after its adoption by the U.S. Army Medical Corps at the beginning of the 20th century. The authors contend that a misunderstanding of ancient mythology and iconography has led to the inappropriate popularization of the modern caduceus as a medical symbol. As they argue, the Asklepian is a medical symbol with a heritage stretching well over two millennia while the modern caduceus became a popular medical symbol only in the early years of the 20th century. Scandalous, you say?

A Wiki’s Worst Nightmare

Recently, the Health Library wiki team discussed the implications of creating a wiki for the health sciences. Is it useful? Who will use it? Why? How? While we were all excited of the implications of what we were doing, we were really walking on unchartered waters. Either we are stumbling onto something great, or we are wasting our time experimenting with something that's not going to be used other than the few people whom we send out the link to.

One question that we debated about was how to monitor the postings. As Stephen Colbert's now infamous Wikiality monologue reveals, not everyone appreciates the power of wiki. Not everyone will have the faith of a democratic wiki. According to Wikipedia, astroturfing:

consist[s] of a few people discreetly posing as mass numbers of activists advocating a specific cause. Supporters or employees will manipulate the degree of interest through letters to the editor, e-mails, blog posts, crossposts, trackbacks, etc. They are instructed on what to say, how to say it, where to send it, and how to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy, or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent; thus being "real" emotions and concerns rather than the product of an orchestrated campaign.

There have been cases reported of astroturfing. It's a serious matter, particularly for a Health Libray Wiki which relies on both updated and accurate information. It should be taken into consideration, particularly if there are a few unruly who want to leave a legacy by giving false information to hurt the many. Can a few wiki masters constantly monitor such a wide net? That will be a challenge that we will face as we move into the information grassroots democracy. With open access, open collaboration, open authoring, open platforming, and open searching in Web 2.0 comes hurdles which we have to face bravely and heads-on.