Deep link provided by CitebiteClose this shade
Source: http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/archives/044265.html
Deep link provided by Citebite
Over the Christmas holidays, my friend and colleague, Greg Rowell, put it best: "Doctors aren't ready for web 3.0" - dude! Greg is the/a medical librarian at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, B.C. and an adjunct faculty member at SLAIS.
Greg isn't a blogger (a point in his favour), but he's extremely good at distilling issues for me. My comment back to Greg was "...the BMJ editorial will get people talking. That's my goal. Besides, what can you do in 1000 words or less? You can't change the world."
Today, there's a nice thread about the Web 3.0 article over at David Rothman's blog. David is a smart, savvy blogger. He makes some excellent points.
My only comment would be that the BMJ piece is not meant to be the definitive editorial on the changing web. If you have some different ideas on where the web is, why don't you write your own piece? Move outside the blog, David. One thing about David's blogging is that he doesn't explore the social or cultural context for all the tools he introduces. It's much harder to place information technologies in some context than it is to merely announce that you've found a new tool worth exploring.
Come back tomorrow for some discussion on Mahalo....
Posted by Dean at January 8, 2008 10:01 AMI don't agree with Greg. It's not a matter of "ready" for Web 3.0. The Web is progressing towards that direction -- and it's only appropriate for librarians to follow and report on those trends.
I don't think your BMJ tried to define Web 3.0 the way Tim O'Reilly defined Web 2.0. (Although it could be perceived that way). Instead, the editorial builds a framework for future discussion on the shortcomings of Web 2.0 and how Web 3.0 might solve those issues when it finally arrives.
Posted by: Allan at January 8, 2008 12:34 PMAllan,
That's helpful, I think. For much of the last year, we've been swept up by the demands and excitement of web 2.0. However, in the last few months, it has become apparent to many web observers that the current state of the web (whatever David wants to call it) is creating problems, overload being one.
And I do think that web 3.0 is a helpful moniker. Even if we think of it as the "third decade" of the web and not in the sense of the semantic web or the 'web of meaning' as suggested by Berners-Lee.
I'm also rather surprised that David didn't see the value of a medical librarian being asked to write for the BMJ. Isn't he missing the overall point? Tut, tut...
Posted by: at January 8, 2008 2:43 PMThanks to Ves Dimov for sending this....Dean
Life as a Healthcare CIO: Knowledge Navigators Combat Information Overload
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2008/01/life-as-healthcare-cio-knowledge.html
“…the end result is that the Medical Library has been renamed the Information Commons and the Department of Medical Libraries has been retitled the Department of Knowledge Services. Librarians are now called
Information Specialists.”
Dean- If you aren't ruffling their feathers, then you aren't saying anything interesting! Hats off to you for contributing!
Hi Courtney
True. My surprise about the web 3.0 article is how few rapid responses there have been at the BMJ site.
I wish someone would do a rebuttal!
take care. Dean
Posted by: at January 9, 2008 10:31 AM