ifla m&m pre-conference stockholm 2010 collaborative document management framework & web 2.0...

IFLA M&M Pre-ConferenceStockholm 2010

QuickTime™ et undécompresseur TIFF (non compressé)

sont requis pour visionner cette image.

Collaborative Document Management Framework &

Web 2.0 Strategies for Libraries

Olivier CharbonneauAssociate Librarian, Concordia University

Montreal

www.culturelibre.ca






(1) Web 2.0 and Marketing

(2) Web 2.0 ToolsBlogs

Wikis

Social Networking

Content Hosting/Sharing

(3) CDMFAgents, Documents

Linking

Writing

Consuming

Exchaning

(4) Conclusion: Shocking question!?!

Outline




(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?)




Web 2.0 ™ Tim O’Reilly

User Generated Content

Collaborative Web

Participative Web




6 pillars of Web 2.0

Karen A. Coombs, Computers in Libraries (2007):

1. Radical decentralization2. Small pieces loosely joined3. Perpetual beta4. Remixable content5. User as contributor6. Rich user experience




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




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




(2) Web 2.0 Tools

Blogs

Wikis

Social Networks





Email Blogs Wikis Social N Content H/S

Goal Point to point (1:1, 1:M)

Log, notes, thoughts, links

Community Reference Tool

Exchanges Host or share content

Primary Access

Time Time Topic (theme)

Time Person or Time

2nd Access

Sender (Person)

Category (theme)

History (time)

Person Time or Person

Structure

(post)

Headings, Message, Metadata

Heading, post, comments

Page, discussion, history

Friends, Post, replies

Heading, Content, Metadata

Examples Look at your inbox!

BoingBoing, CultureLIbre.ca

Wikipedia FaceBook

LinkedIn

YouTube, Flickr

Of a post… (constructivist approach)




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




(2) Web 2.0 Tools

Blogs

Wikis

Social Networks


Is there a common thread?



sont requis pour visionner cette image.Source: Wikipedia




Email Blogs Wikis Social N Content H/S

Goal Point to point (1:1, 1:M)

Log, notes, thoughts, links

Community Reference Tool

Exchanges Host or share content

Primary Access

Time Time Topic (theme)

Time Person or Time

2nd Access

Sender (Person)

Category (theme)

History (time)

Person Time or Person

Structure

(post)

Headings, Message, Metadata

Heading, post, comments

Page, discussion, history

Friends, Post, replies

Heading, Content, Metadata

Examples Look at your inbox!

BoingBoing, CultureLIbre.ca

Wikipedia FaceBook

LinkedIn

YouTube, Flickr

Of a post… (constructivist approach)




Web 2.0 Variable 2:

The fundamental elements of all these tools are the “post” and the

“person”




(3) Collaborative Document Management Framework

Conceptual understanding of Web 2.0 tools




Collaborative Document Management Framework (CDMF)

© 2008, Olivier Charbonneau




Collaborative Document Management Framework (CDMF) - explained

Consuming

Linking

Conversations or exchanging

Writing

AgentsDocuments





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





(4) Shocking Web 2.0 Question!?!

How many Internet sites or catalogues (“web presences”)

does a library need?




The usual answer: 1

A very modernist approach, the “perfect” or omniscient website, where everything is organized

with a formal ontology




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 morepost-modern)




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




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




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 onewebsite too many)




Beware of the technological imperative

Don’t ask how you should use technology, but if this technology aids your “business processes” or

“marketing goals”




A moment of zen… and the end.



Olivier Charbonneau, BCom, LLMAssociate Librarian, Concordia University

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.culturelibre.ca/

ifla m&m pre-conference stockholm 2010 collaborative document management framework & web 2.0...

Documents

preconference stockholm

pillars of web

wikipedia slide

formal constraint of

information environment

remixable content

rich user experience

dont mix slide