I've generally found Michael Habib to be one of the more thoughtful bloggers posting about Library 2.0, so I was eager to read his Master's paper after he posted it a couple of weeks ago. He's done a particularly fine job.
He comes up with a definition of "Library 2.0" that is logical, internally consistent, and that deftly avoids the problems that I've discussed in my two recent posts. The essence of his definition is that the "2.0" part of the term is not a version number -- rather, it's a signifier pointing to Web 2.0. That leads him to a nicely succinct definition:
Library 2.0 describes a subset of library services designed to meet user needs caused by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0.
He amplifies that definition somewhat later in the paper, by specifying what he sees as the essential elements of Web 2.0.
In this definition, "Library 2.o" does not indicate a new model of library services, but simply indicates that when we use the term we're talking specifically about how librarians can best respond to the impact that Web 2.0 technologies have had (and continue to have) on the communities that libraries participate in. He then describes a theoretical model for how we might discuss those impacts and translate them into opportunities for improved services.
If the library community were to accept Habib's definition of Library 2.0, then I think it could be a useful term -- but that's a big "if". The "n.nn" convention for numbering successive versions of software is pretty well entrenched; Habib's definition requires that we ignore that contextual history in this case and read "Library 2.0" not as a 2.0 version of Library, but merely as Library in relationship to Web 2.0. I'm doubtful that can actually be accomplished, but it's still the most coherent definition I've seen.
At any rate, regardless of how one feels about the term, the paper is definitely worth reading. It's not very long (44 pages), it's well written, and it's full of provocative thinking. And if his definition did become the generally accepted understanding of the term, then I guess I'd be able to live with it.