Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Expected Role of Librarian 2.0 in the Library 2.0 Era

도서관 2.0 시대의 사서 2.0에게 기대되는 역할에 관한 연구

  • Syn, Sue-Yeon (University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences) ;
  • Kim, Sung-Min (University of Pittsburgh, School of Information Sciences)
  • Received : 2010.05.27
  • Accepted : 2010.06.15
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The idea of Library 2.0 originated from the concept of Web 2.0 social interactions within the Web. From this aspect, Library 2.0 is a library blended with Web 2.0. The most remarkable features of Library 2.0 are interactions and user involvement. Users' roles in new library environments are greater since they can contribute to establishing a library collection by annotating, blogging, reviewing, etc. While users' roles become important, the responsibilities of the librarians increase due to the unfiltered information created by users. Librarians now should extend their roles as information creators, organizers, providers, managers, as well as moderators. In this paper, we reviewed the current literature on the new paradigm of digital libraries, Library 2.0, and the development of Library 2.0. In addition, we discuss the extended role of the Librarian 2.0 in Library 2.0.

도서관 2.0 개념은 웹상에서 상호작용하는 웹 2.0의 개념에서 비롯되었다. 이런 측면에서 볼 때, 도서관 2.0은 웹2.0의 조합이고 가장 주목할만한 특징은 상호작용과 이용자 참여라 할 수 있다. 변화된 도서관 환경에서의 이용자 역할의 비중은 도서관 소장자료에 대한 그들의 태깅, 블로깅, 서평 등과 같은 기여로 점점 더 커져왔다. 이렇듯 이용자의 역할이 변화하면서 도서관 사서들의 책임 또한 이용자들이 만들어낸 정제되지 않은 정보원의 점검자 역할에까지 이르게 되었으며, 결국 정보의 생산자, 조직가, 제공자, 관리자 뿐만 아니라 조정자의 역할로 확장되게 된다. 본 연구에서는 디지털 도서관의 새로운 패러다임으로 인식되는 도서관 2.0과 그 발전에 대한 최근의 연구들을 살펴보고 도서관 2.0 측면에서의 사서의 확대된 역할로서 사서 2.0에 대해 논하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abram, S. 2006. “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the Librarian 2.0: preparing for the 2.0 world.” Sirsi/Dynix OneSource, 2(1).
  2. Agosti, M., N. Ferro, I. Frommholz, and U. Thiel. 2004. “Annotations in digital libraries and collaboratories - facets, models and usage.” In Proceeding of 8th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2004).
  3. Anderson, P. 2007. “What is Web 2.0?: Ideas, technologies and implications for education.” JISC Technology and Standards Watch.
  4. Bischoff, K., C. S. Firan, W. Nejdl, and R. Faiu. 2008. “Can all tags be used for search?” In Proceedings of Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’08). Nap Valley, California, USA, October 26-30, 2008.
  5. Black, E. L. 2007. “Web 2.0 and Library 2.0: What Librarians Need to Know.” In Nancy, C. (Ed.), Library 2.0 and Beyond: Innovative Technologies and Tomorrow's Use (pp.1-14). Libraries Unlimited.
  6. Biancu, B. 2006. “Library 2.0 meme map - version 2.0.” In Flickr. [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  7. Casey, M. E. and L. C. Savastinuk. 2006. “Library 2.0 - service for the next-generation library.” Library Journal.
  8. Courtney, N. 2007. Library 2.0 and Beyond: Innovative Technologies and Tomorrow's User. Libraries Unlimited.
  9. Danbury Library Catalogs. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  10. Delicious. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  11. Digital Library Federation. 1998. A Working Definition of Digital Library. [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  12. Flickr. The Library of Congress’ Photostream. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  13. Gapen, D. K. 1993. “The virtual library: society, and the librarian.” In L. M. Saunders (Ed.), The virtual library: Visions and realities (1-14). Westport, CT: Meckler.
  14. Godwin, P. and J. Parker. (eds). 2008. Information Literacy meets Library 2.0. London: Facet.
  15. Habib, M. 2006. Toward Academic Library 2.0: Development and Application of a Library 2.0 Methodology. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  16. Heymann, P., G. Koutrika, and H. Garcia-Molina. 2008. “Can social bookmarking improve web search?” In Proceedings of Web Search and Web Data Mining (WSDM’08). Palo Alto, California, USA, February 11-12, 2008.
  17. Johnson, K., H. Trabelsi, and T. Tin. 2004. “Library support for online learners: eResources, eServi ces and the human factors.” In: Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca: Athaba sca University. [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  18. Kansas State University Libraries. Blogs and Feeds. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  19. Kantor, P. B. 1993. “The adaptive library network interface: A historical overview and interim report.” Library Hi Tech, 11: 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb047897
  20. Kappel, G., B. Proll, S. Reich, and W. Retschitzegger. 2006. Web Engineering. (1sted.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
  21. King, G., H. T. Kung, B. Grosz, S. Verba, D. Flecker, and B. Kahin. 1994. “The Harvard self-enriching library facilities (SELF) Project. In Proceedings of Digital Libraries '94 (DL '94), Texas.
  22. Koenig, M. E. D. 1990. “Linking library users: a culture change in librarianship.” American Libraries, 21: 844-849.
  23. Kuchi, T., L. B. Mullen, and S. Tama-Bartels. 2004. “Librarians without borders: reaching out to students at a campus center.” Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(4): 310-317.
  24. Lin, X., J. C. Beaudoin, and K. Desai. 2006. “Exploring chracteristics of social classification.” In Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. November 4, 2006, Austin, TX.
  25. Levy, D. and C. C. Marshall. 1995. “Going digital: A look at assumptions underlying digital libraries.” Communications of the ACM, 38(4): 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/205323.205346
  26. LibraryThing for Library. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  27. LibraryThing. Tools. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  28. LibraryThing. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  29. Maness, J. 2006. “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries.” Webology, 3(2), Article25.
  30. Marshall, C. 1997. “Annotation: from paper books to the digital library.” In Proceedings of the ACM Digital Libraries '97 Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 131-140.
  31. Mason, J., S. Mitchell, M. Mooney, L. Reasoner, and C. Rodriguez. 2000. “INFOMINE: Promising directions in virtual library development.” First Monday, 5(6).
  32. Nashville Public Library. Teen Web. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  33. O’Reilly’s Radar. 2005. “Web 2.0: Compact Definition?” [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  34. Renda, M. E. and U. Straccia. 2005. “A personalized collaborative digital library environment: A model and an application.” Information Processing and Management, 41: 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2004.04.007
  35. Rethlefsen, M. L. 2007. “Tags Help Make Libraries Del.icio.us: Social bookmarking and tagging boost participation.” Library Journal. [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  36. Secker, J. 2008. “The adventures of LASSIE: Libraries, distance learners and social software.” Serials, 21(2): 112-115. https://doi.org/10.1629/21112
  37. Second Life. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  38. Sen, S., F. M. Harper, A. LaPitz, and J. Riedl. 2007. “The quest for quality tags.” In Proceedings of Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP'07). Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, November 4-7, 2007: 361-370.
  39. Springer, M., B. Dulabahn, P. Michel, B. Natanson, D. Reser, D. Woodward, and H. Zinkham. 2008. For the Common Good: The Library of Congress Flickr Pilot Project. Library of Congress. [cited 2010.5.27]. .
  40. Stephens, K. and M. Collins. 2007. “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the hyperlinked library.” Electronic Journal Forum. 253-256.
  41. Steve Museum Project. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  42. Syn, S. Y. and M. B. Spring. 2009. Tags as keywords - comparison of the relative quality of tags and keywords. In Proceedings of ASIS&T 2009 Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 6-11, 2009.
  43. Thunder Bay Public Library. Internet Links. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  44. Trant, J. 2006. Social classification and folksonomy in art museum: Early data from the steve.mseum tagger prototype. In Proceedings of 17th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research (ASISTSIG/CR), November 4, 2006, Austin, TX, USA.
  45. Wenzler, J. 2007. LibraryThing and the Library Catalog: Adding Collective Intelligent to the OPAC. A Workshop on Next Generation Libraries CARLNorth IT Interest Group, September 7, 2007, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  46. University of Pittsburgh Library System. PittCat+ Beta. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  47. Upper Hudson Library System. [cited 2010.6.4]. .
  48. Yi, K. and L. M. Chan. 2009. “Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress Subject Headings: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Documentation, 65(5): 872-900. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910998906
  49. Zubiaga, A., R. Martinez, and V. Fresno. 2009. “Getting the most out of social annotations for web page classification.” In Proceedings of Document Engineering (DocEng’09). Munich, Germany, September 16-18, 2009.