IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Collaborative Document Management Framework & Web 2.0 Strategies for Libraries Olivier Charbonneau Associate Librarian, Concordia University Montreal

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (1) Web 2.0 and Marketing (2) Web 2.0 Tools Blogs Wikis Social Networking Content Hosting/Sharing (3) CDMF Agents, Documents Linking Writing Consuming Exchaning (4) Conclusion: Shocking question!?! Outline

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (1) Web 2.0 and Marketing Both are communication and in the context of engaging patrons: Marketing is an objective (What?) “Web 2.0” is a process or set of tool (How?)

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Web 2.0 ™ Tim O’Reilly User Generated Content Collaborative Web Participative Web

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm pillars of Web 2.0 Karen A. Coombs, Computers in Libraries (2007): 1.Radical decentralization 2.Small pieces loosely joined 3.Perpetual beta 4.Remixable content 5.User as contributor 6.Rich user experience

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Will we ever let patrons get involved in a library’s key messages? The formal constraint of Web 2.0 implies that the user is responsible for her information environment

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Will we ever let patrons get involved in a library’s key messages? The formal constraint of Web 2.0 implies that the user is responsible for her information environment Controlling the message and Web 2.0 don’t mix

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (2) Web 2.0 Tools Blogs Wikis Social Networks Content Hosting/Sharing

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm BlogsWikisSocial NContent H/S Goal Point to point (1:1, 1:M) Log, notes, thoughts, links Community Reference Tool ExchangesHost or share content Primary Access Time Topic (theme) TimePerson or Time 2nd Access Sender (Person) Category (theme) History (time) PersonTime or Person Structure (post) Headings, Message, Metadata Heading, post, comments Page, discussion, history Friends, Post, replies Heading, Content, Metadata ExamplesLook at your inbox! BoingBoing, CultureLIbre. ca WikipediaFaceBook LinkedIn YouTube, Flickr Of a post… (constructivist approach)

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Web 2.0 Variables 1: Authorship: “authentic” vs. “edited” Access: “open/free” («libre») vs. “closed” But the closer you get to “edited” and “closed” tools, the further you are from Web 2.0

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (2) Web 2.0 Tools Blogs Wikis Social Networks Content Hosting/Sharing Is there a common thread?

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Source: Wikipedia

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm BlogsWikisSocial NContent H/S Goal Point to point (1:1, 1:M) Log, notes, thoughts, links Community Reference Tool ExchangesHost or share content Primary Access Time Topic (theme) TimePerson or Time 2nd Access Sender (Person) Category (theme) History (time) PersonTime or Person Structure (post) Headings, Message, Metadata Heading, post, comments Page, discussion, history Friends, Post, replies Heading, Content, Metadata ExamplesLook at your inbox! BoingBoing, CultureLIbre. ca WikipediaFaceBook LinkedIn YouTube, Flickr Of a post… (constructivist approach)

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Web 2.0 Variable 2: The fundamental elements of all these tools are the “post” and the “person”

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (3) Collaborative Document Management Framework Conceptual understanding of Web 2.0 tools

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Collaborative Document Management Framework (CDMF) © 2008, Olivier Charbonneau

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Collaborative Document Management Framework (CDMF) - explained Consuming Linking Conversations or exchanging Writing Agents Documents © 2008, Olivier Charbonneau

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Collaborative Document Management Framework (CDMF) - examples Using Posts (new authority measure) Pages in a Wiki / Linking Blogs trackbacks / Wiki discussions Posting / voting (new authority measure) Social Networks Posts © 2008, Olivier Charbonneau

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 (4) Shocking Web 2.0 Question!?! How many Internet sites or catalogues (“web presences”) does a library need?

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 The usual answer: 1 A very modernist approach, the “perfect” or omniscient website, where everything is organized with a formal ontology

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 The usual answer: 1 A very modernist approach, the “perfect” or omniscient website, where everything is organized with a formal ontology NOT WEB 2.0 !! (lets try something a bit more post-modern)

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 The imperfect Web 2.0 answer: n where “n” is the distinct number of classes of users, allowing for classes of 1, which leads to infinity

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 The formalist Web 2.0 answer: 0 Only in this case will the user truly be in charge of her information environment; Full disintermediation and dematerialization

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 The formalist Web 2.0 answer: 0 Only in this case will the user truly be in charge of her information environment; Full disintermediation and dematerialization My favorite! (Libraries have one website too many)

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 Beware of the technological imperative Don’t ask how you should use technology, but if this technology aids your “business processes” or “marketing goals”

IFLA M&M Pre-Conference Stockholm 2010 A moment of zen… and the end. Olivier Charbonneau, BCom, LLM Associate Librarian, Concordia University