The other day, I wrote an entry about concepts of Web 3.0. In it, I mentioned that "...of the most important tenets of Library 2.0 is the one that transcends Library 2.0. I'm referring to the notion that libraries evolve as our users' information culture evolves in order to meet users' changing needs. To me, this timeless adaptability is the essence of Library 2.0. In other words, Library 2.0 does not begin and end with the Web 2.0 phenomenon."

I'd like to explore this a little. I'm in the process of preparing a few publications and talks on the 2.0 topic (big surprise), and I've been thinking about the meaning of Library 2.0 - the comprehensive meaning. Back when I was in high school, I was taught by a memorable English teacher that you should never write an essay on a topic without defining that topic. (He did a great job of driving this lesson home by asking the class to write a topical essay. None of us defined the topic. He handed back our papers with a "Gotcha!" Well done.) So, in my publications and my talks, I always define my topics.

It's not terribly difficult to define Library 2.0 in terms of incorporating users' Web 2.0 information culture into the information culture of libraries. With a little more elaboration, you'd have a decent definition of Library 2.0 that would satisfy many people.

I recently read a comment on someone's blog in which the individual dismissively wrote something along the lines of, "Library 2.0 is just the social Web. I can't see that it's anything more than that." I don't know if most people see Library 2.0 in these terms, but I suspect that this isn't far from the truth. Library 2.0 is derivative of Web 2.0, and that about covers it.

This would be a pity. For me, the "timeless adaptability" that I referred to earlier gets to the heart of the matter. Information culture will always evolve, and libraries will always need evolve along with it. The tricky part here is to acknowledge that libraries have always done this. The problem is, the pace of change has gotten so rapid, and the change itself has been so widespread and so thorough, that the relatively cautious culture of libraries has left us to fall behind. And in falling behind, we're failing our users. Our vendors have fallen behind, too, and are under pressure to get their act together. Think of library management system vendors - they're not terribly popular among 2.0 adherents these days. Scholarly portals aren't in much better shape. In fact, our portal vendors need to be hearing much more from us on the subject.

So, my definition of Library 2.0 goes beyond the 2.0. For me, the best part of Library 2.0 is the inspiration to think beyond 2.0 or any specific number or trend. Library 2.0 is a springboard. Within my definition, libraries evolve wisely and nimbly to meet users' evolving needs as their information culture shapes these needs. I'll be sure to incorporate this concept into any definition I give.