OLJ - An evaluation statement with a focus on FaceBook, Tagging and RSS feeds

Part A - An evaluation statement using 3 experiences documented in your OLJ as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject.

Web2.0/Library2.0: I explored social networking technologies within the context of libraries especially with regards to OLJ learning in areas relevant to Library 2.0. Library 2.0 as coined by Michael Casey (Sodt & Summey 2009, p.98) is built on Web2.0 concept. Tom O’Reilly (Evans 2010, p.4) suggests that the underlying principles or 4Cs of Web2.0 are collaboration, conversation, community and content creation.


My review of recent literature confirmed although a recent development Library 2.0 is taking hold in the library community. (Evans 2010, p 3). Library 2.0 development by proprietary Integrated Library Systems (ILS) vendors, open source community, and commercial vendors affect the library 2.0 tools available for next generation catalogue. Yang (2010, p 690) suggests that Open source tools seem to be bolder and more innovative than proprietary tools in embracing library 2.0. I observed this when I visited a number of library catalogues; and it was clear that libraries with limited technical resources are limited in implementing the Library 2.0 tools offered by the Open source technology and tend to rely on what their proprietary systems provides them.

In line with Web2.0 4Cs of social media studied social networking sites like Facebook, and other Web 2.0 tools like Tagging (Folksonamies), and RSS feeds “creates opportunities for users of online services to add value to the service through feedback and interaction". I examined the use of these tools to see their integration to the library catalogue (next generation catalogue) in support of the Web2.0 4Cs.

Facebook: Despite being a dominant social networking site on the web arena; (Landis, 2010, p. 12) its use in libraries is just taking hold (Jacobson 2011, p.79).

I visited a number of library catalogues to review the collaboration of Facebook and Twitter to the next generation library catalogue. A significant number of library catalogue I visited had some presence of social networking integration with a link to Facebook.com. Although the percentage of library catalogues without social networking integrations were higher, those with integration with Facebook enable users to share links to library materials with friends, and this helps to promote the use of library resources. Although I also observed that Library catalogues are yet to align Facebook integration to the full contentment of the Web2.0 4Cs. With the current integration, users are not fully engaged in collaboration, conversation and content creation. As illustrated below, a link to Facebook from an item search allows users to share a library material with their Facebook fans. One could say that this provides some collaboration.

The future the Library catalogue/Facebook integration aims to enable Facebook to “embrace” the library catalogue. Such a love affair means that the library catalogue becomes fully accessible/searchable from a person’s Facebook account. This concept keeps users into their Facebook environment and pushes the library catalogue to the Facebook environment where most users would spend most of their time. This concept allows users to immerse in collaboration, conversation, community and content creation.


Such an environment will allow the Facebook users to easily add content by adding resources of interest to their virtual book shelf, and then sharing those with fans. Additionally “My Account” function of the library catalogue could be accessible from the Facebook account authentication. A Paypal feature that allows users to conveniently pay their library fines and fees could be incorporated.

A Facebook plugin widget “Like this book” could be integrated to library catalogue enabling users to rate popular materials.

RSS feed: (Really Simple Syndication) allows users to connect themselves to content that is often updated. Next generation library catalogue interface includes RSS feeds. With this feature users can have new books lists, top-circulating book lists, canned searches and “watch the topic” connections to the catalogue on their own blogs or feed reader page. Users could also use RSS feed to keep a history of what they are reading, and are able to share these with friends.

Web 2.0 ‘technologies’ is about creating a magnet to which people can be pulled to information content on library website. It is also about pushing out content to people.

The collaboration of RSS feeds to the "Next generation library catalogue" has potential to greatly enhance the way that libraries deliver their resources. (Aery 2008, p. 1)

Tagging: (“Folksonamies”) is also a functionality of the social networking that enables users to collaboratively create and manage tags to annotate and categorize content. Thomas et al (2009, p.412) argue that though library provides controlled vocabulary, users quite often are not familiar with the terms in the vocabulary and therefore not able to make the right searching decisions. Tags are therefore used to provide the ability for users to highlight different aspect of resources. Thomas et al (2009, p.431) conclude that, “social tagging does indeed augment the LCSH [Library of Congress Subject Heading] providing additional access to resources”. The collaborative aspect of the tagging system is also an important function. Golder and Huberman (2006) in Thomas et al (2009, p.413) say that “Users tag primarily for themselves but software makes it possible to see all the tags so a users can borrow tags from other users.

In addition, Delicious social tagging when integrated with NGC allows users to share tags from the library catalogues. While the library catalogue functionality provides ability to bookmark searches, the social element of tagable bookmarks is very important as it is easier for others to find and use what other library users have saved as useful resources. (Evans, 2010, p. 43).

OLJ - Module 3 - Library 2.0 ethos - A-Z social networking for libraries

OLJ Activity:
READ the post A to Z of Social Networking for Libraries (22 January, 2010) on the Social Networking for Libraries blog.


Consider this advice in terms of a library and information agency that you know (as an employee or user). Select advice from five (5) letters of this A-Z list and consider how these may be applied to this library to help it embrace a Library 2.0 ethos. Write up your findings as a post (of no more than 350 words in your OLJ).

A classic or digital migrant library user, and or a conservative library management might be contented with an ‘out of the box’ Library catalogues typically known as the OPAC (online access catalogue) as delivered by an ILS. After all the OPAC could be seen as an effective tool that point users to information sources located in the library. They may also be limited by resources available for developing library catalogue to the standard of the next generation catalogue. "If it ain't broke, why fix it". However is this enough in the Web2.0/Library 2.0 current environment? Could Library 2.0 “revitalize” the way libraries serves and interact with customers as claimed in Casey & Savastinuk? Library 2.0 invites users’ participation, enhanced librarian’s skills and service improvement, and offers “customer driven service opportunities” where customers can tailor library services to suit their own needs.

The A to Z of Social Networking for Libraries provides a list of social networking technologies that add value to library services in the current Web2.0 environment. Understandably there is pressure for libraries to respond positively to the fast changing world of information technology; to provide Internet related resources and services that users need and want. Libraries therefore look realistically at what is achievable within the library available resources.

Of the A-to Z, I am considering specifically how L-Librarything and M-Mobile technologies maybe applied to the Charles Stuart University (CSU) Library catalogue to embrace Library 2.0 ethos.

LibraryThing’s Tag browsing for example will enhance CSU catalogue with "powerful and flexibility searching and browsing books by tags. CSU could also "FRBR"ize their catalogue by linking related editions and translation of the same work. Book reviews is another useful feature of the Library2.0 ethos.

As an example of the technology being offered, SirsiDynix an Integrated Library System (ILS) offers the BookMyne product which is built on the Web services technology. BookMyne brings conveniently, social-savvy library functionality to the Library customers. The ability for the CSU library to make their information sources, and social networking services accessible via mobile devices will enable CDU to reach their clients where ever they are.

OLJ - Module 3 -the 4Cs of social media

OLJ TASK - Visit ASU’s collection of The Library Minute videos and view five (5) of these one minute videos, then visit two (2) of the other Web 2.0 tools used as part of the ASU Library Channel suite at http://lib.asu.edu/librarychannel/.


Write a critical evaluation on ASU Libraries’ use of these platforms to achieve the 4Cs of social media (in no more than 350 words).

Arizonal State University (ASU) libraries 'the library minute' video title "the social connection"  encourages their customers to "connect with us and join our conversation". ASU claims that communication goes both ways. ASU has promoted their services and resources on Twitter and  Facebook websites.  As an academic environment, I can see that it is important for ASU to engage their student in the social space where students hangout. These social networking technologies fits in well with the Web2.0 4C - thus collaboration, conversation, community and content creation. ASU provides a collaboration between their website and the Facebook and Twitter site and uses this media to provide information for their customers. Customer are able to rank information provided as "liked". Customers are also able to tweet the "ask a librarian" service. This could be seen as some form of a conversation and content creation. However, I can see that ASU does not fully engage their customers in a conversation where customers could post comments to the ASU Facebook posts.  Where 4Cs of Web2.0 is adhered to, customers should be able to add content, share in a conversation with the library community, and with  the face book community.  
  

I expected to see  the ASU library integrate the social networking sites to their Library catalogue as I have seen on Hennepin County Library. The  integration/collaboration of  Twitter and Face book to library catalogue allow library users to exchange information about the library materials they are reading; and according to Breeding (2010, p. 29) social networking sites "provide important opportunities to promote the library relevant content [library catalogue], services, and activities". This is illustrated on Hennepin County Library (HCP) as illustrated in figures1 - 3. However, this collaboration with library catalogue does not truly fit in with the Web2.0 principles. The Library catalogue should be accessed directly from the Facebook account, where customers could comment on books they are reading within their Facebook account. Customer should create and add to their virtual bookshelves and then share bookmarks with fans.

Figure 1 demonstrates the integration of Facebook and Twitter to the HCP library catalogue.

Figure 1


















Figure 2 shows an illustration of a search  result that links with Facebook to allow the item information shared and discussed among the Facebook community.

Figure2

Similarly, figure 3 shows an example of library catalogue item link through Twitter; this could be shared and discussed as a tweet.

Figure 3

OLJ - Module 4 : Making Web2.0 work in Libraries

OLJ Activity:
Select three (3) libraries of your choice that use social networking to meet their goals.

Develop a comparative table which documents how each of the libraries use social networking tools to support information service provision, educational programs, conduct business etc.

Based on this comparison (and in no more than 350 words) develop your own list of “Reasons why libraries should be on social media”, and draw upon aspects of these three libraries to illustrate each point.

A comparison of Web2.0 tools as used in a select university libraries. Ohio University Library(Ohio) has a focus on interaction, and on engaging customers in instant communication. Facebook and Twitter is used intensively on Ohio to promote library services and  to track feedback from customers.  Ohio has not used Blogs where as Charles Sturt Library uses Twitter and Blogs and has a focus on instant live chats with their customers. It appears the University of Auckland Library has not invested much in Web2.0 with just Tags, RSS feed and Email available. Auckland University has the Mobile applications provided for their customers to access and use their Library on the go.

I am surprised that Charles Sturt Library and the University of Auckland Library have used less social networking sites and social media. It is becoming essential for libraries to to take the idea of  Web2.0  and apply its tools to engage, interact and empower library patrons. According to Breeding (2010, p 28), "social media provides opportunities for exposure to the library and funnel users into the service it offers".

Facebook use in libraries is summarised as follows:

• Live reference chats
• Engage with customers by allowing customers to add comments to posting or to "like posting"
• Collaborated to library catalogue to able customers to share information on books they are reading.
• Promote the library services and encourage participation
• Book clubs and study groups

http://old.diglib.org/forums/spring2009/presentations/Boyer.pdf

Twitter can be used to pull customers to the library and track what the library patrons think of the services offered.

• Reference services: tweet information on current events
• It helps in the identification of user needs
• Promote library services.
•  Attract  followers to the library
• Collaborate Twitter to the Library catalogue to enable users to share information on library material
• Bulletin board: Some libraries use Twitter as an online bulletin board for which they post programme announcement (Krabill, 2009, p. 15)

 RSS feed is great for pushing out information to people. RSS enhances the traditional library's  current awareness service "Selected Dissemination of Information (SDI) function. 

YouTube videos can be used as a social tool to promote the use of library resources. For example, Ohio University Library has promoted their library services with a series of Video help.   I find video tutorials facilitates learning a subject quickly and it could be used also as a learning tool in a University learning environment..

OLJ - Module 2 - RSS feeds.

OLJ - Activity

Now that you have explored some examples of how libraries and the media make use of RSS to deliver updated information and the applications that can tailor and aggregate feeds for specific users, find two (2) additional examples of 'RSS in action', and develop a 350 word post to your OLJ on how RSS can enhance a library or information service’s ability to meet the information needs of its users.

RSS in Web2.0 environment means that the web browser is no longer the only means of viewing a web page" O'Reilly (2007, P 25). Users have the power to pull information updates to any devices and share those with their friends.   "It provides users a way to syndicate and republish content on the Web" (Arora, 2009, p.53).   RSS empowers information sharing as since its delivery in 1997 by Dave Winer, it has turned "webblogs from an ease-of publishing phenomenon into a conversational mess of overlapping communities" (O'Reilly 2007, P 25). RSS enables organisation to create a magnet from which people can be pulled to information content on their website.   

So...
Create         Publish          Distribute

Source: Feedburner.google.com

RSS stands for "Really Simple Syndication" but also referred to as "Rich Site Summary". RSS is technology used to distribute information from websites. With RSS, readers can subscribe to timely updates from their favourite websites or to aggregate feeds from many sites into one place. RSS feeds can be read using software called an "RSS reader", "feed reader", or "aggregator", which can be web based, desktop based or mobile based.

Organisations such as Libraries need their customers to stay informed of new information resources and services acquired or offerred by the library.

The collaboration of RSS feeds to the "Next generation library catalogue" has greatly enhanced the way that libraries now delivered their services  (Arora, 2009, p.53). With RSS, users have ability to subscribe to an alert that gives them a list of new titles acquired by the library. Right  from their own space, they can then  request the new book delivered to them.

The screen shot below illustrates the ability to subscribe to titles of interest from the library catalogue.

Source: Auckland City Libraries

See the amazing things Dekalb county public library is doing with RSS feed. With RSS feeds, their users can  keep up to date on the latest additions to the library catalog. This library also offers Calendar of Events RSS feeds for every event type, age group, and library branch.

In fact, RSS feed has become a standard feature of the new generation library catalogue.  RSS “feeds” free library customers  from having to constantly search the library catalogue to see if anything new and interesting has been acquired. The required  information is delivered to customers as soon as it is available.

Here is the highlight of how libraries are using RSS feed:

• New additions that match a users particular interest
• Newly published articles
• Newly added items by Media type.
• Newly added items by Subject
• Newly added items by Author
• Newly added items by Time period
• Library notices
• Library calendar/events
• News and current affairs
• Community events
• Use of RSS for checked-out history. User can always keep track of all items they have checked out. 

INF506 Assessment 2 - (Social networking project proposal)

Title

The impact of social networking technologies on the Next generation catalogue.

Brief description

I will model the case study on library literature that discusses the use of and the impact of the web2.0 on the next Generation catalogues.

The study will first define the Next generation catalogue concept and will define the web2.0 and then identify the technologies that are inclusive of the Next generation catalogue.

The case study will involve a critical evaluation of selected web 2.0 technologies as used on a selected two libraries; thus an academic and a public library.

Social networking technologies to be used

My focus is to discuss social networking technologies that interface with the Next generation catalogue to promote social interaction and information sharing and exchange.

•  RSS feed

•  Tag cloud

•  Reviews

•  Social bookmarking

•  Online book clubs like Book space/Library Thing

•  Twitter and Face book

These technologies will be discussed but just three will be critically evaluated.

Expected outcomes of the case study.

The study will reveal the understanding and awareness of the next generation social networking impact on

•  Effectiveness of the social networking technologies on Library catalogues.

•  Digital divide issues

•  The technologies’ role in the promotion of library services

•  Priorities of library resources in terms of collection development and quality of customer services vs.   focus on library catalogue design.

•  If it ‘ain’t broke’ still fix it? (OPAC) - Is library just seeking an identity with the internet?

•  Simplicity of use and target audience.

•  Any new social networking technologies yet to appear on the next generation catalogue.

Project plan

Start with a literature review.

Investigate a range of social networking technologies used on Next generation catalogue.

Investigate any new social networking technologies that could be used on the next generation catalogue.

Research and select libraries to use in case study. An academic library and a public library

Explore the two library catalogues to identify Social networking technologies being used.

Obtain knowledge for this case study from the literature review and through investigation and evaluation of the selected library catalogues.

The case study will be presented in a report format. The report will analyse and evaluate the readings on this topic; and it will present screen shots to illustrate the case study.

INF506 - Social Networking for Information Professionals - A Learning Journal

Social networking defined in my own words.

Social networking provides the means by which humans seek to convey their relevance to the society; to exercise control, relief and reliance through exchange of knowledge and sharing of other resources. Social networking has been with us since the beginning of time. In my African village, the culture of the people thrives on social networking. Communities at large are connected with each other through social networking in marriage, economic, agriculture, religion and political activities. Individuals are in contact with each constantly to share not just knowledge but their time, space, emotions, experience and other resources. Social networking technologies allows individuals to interact with each other more frequent and where face to face meeting may not be adequate due to many factors including time limitation as it is typical with the western style living.

Social networking technologies and sites I have already used?


None!
I am very sceptical of the social networking technologies. I have up to now refused to be part of the social networking technology. I respect my privacy and I am being cautious of my information going to people I may not want to share with.

In signing up on Face book and twitter for this subject, I contemplated if I should use my real name.


What I expect from completing INF506.


I am taking this course especially as a way of delving into a more understanding of the social networking technologies. As an Information professional, I am hoping to come out very confident with a range of social networking environments and be able to contribute my knowledge to the information needs of users of these technologies. I hope to overcome the phobia of being part of the 21st century social networking.