Navigating the technological frontier: Tracing the journey from library 2.0 to library 5.0 and its impact on knowledge repositories

Abstract

This paper explores the technological evolution of libraries from Library 1.0 to Library 5.0 between 1990 and 2025, emphasizing how these shifts have transformed not only user engagement but also the structure and functioning of knowledge repositories. Over successive generations, repositories have evolved from static, hierarchical collections to dynamic, interoperable systems. Metadata standards have improved to support semantic interoperability, and linked data practices have enabled cross-platform integration and contextual discovery. User-generated content and AI-driven analytics now enhance curation, retrieval, and personalization. Library 1.0 (1990–2005) featured basic digitization with manual cataloging. Library 2.0 (2006–2010) introduced Web 2.0 technologies for participatory access. Library 3.0 (2011–2015) brought mobile access, cloud computing, and metadata enhancements. Library 4.0 (2016–2020) leveraged AI and data analytics for intelligent systems. Library 5.0 (2021–2025) integrates blockchain, IoT, and immersive technologies to create decentralized, secure, and ethically aware information ecosystems. This study adopts a qualitative, literature-based research design using thematic and chronological analysis to trace this progression and evaluate its implications for the future of knowledge repositories.

Keywords

Library2.0 artificial intelligence augmentation reality virtual reality evolution of libraries

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adeyoyin

Ezeudu

Adegun

, et al. (2013) The metamorphosis of world wide web: an overview of web 1.0, 2.0, semantic web 3.0 and their application in library and information services delivery. Benue Journal o f Library, Management and Information Science (BJLMIS) 3(1): 103–117. http://repository.ui.edu.ng/handle/123456789/5721.

Aguilera

Wiersma

(2022) What do you do when the library is closed? Measuring user satisfaction with library collections and services during COVID-19. Serials Librarian 82(1–4): 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2022.2018234.

Akil Sindhu

Chezian

(2016 A concise analysis of various recommendation methods and techniques for efficient recommender systems NANo ranking found for “Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems.” https://www.academia.edu/download/50202820

Awasthi

(2019) Plagiarism and academic misconduct: A systematic review. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology 39(2): 94–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.13622.

Balaji

M.S

Shalini

, et al. (2018) An integrative review of web 3.0 in academic libraries. Library Hi Tech News 35(4): 13–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-12-2017-0092.

Baxter

Sommerville

(2011) Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers 23(1): 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Casey

and Savastinuk

(2006) Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal 131: 40–42. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755270 .

Chen

McNab

Zhang

(2023) How to improve the university library intelligent knowledge service: A system dynamics model. Journal of Information Science 49(5): 1202–1217. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211042240.

10.

Chowdhury

(2018 Factors influencing the adoption of cloud computing driven by big data technology: a quantitative study NANo ranking found for “2022 International Conference on Cloud Computing, Big Data and Internet of Things (3CBIT).” https://search.proquest.com/openview/3f5dd98a67f4e76213b52ce63a e6647e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

11.

Creswell

Poth

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/qualitative-inquiry-and-researchdesign/book246896

12.

Cruz

KFS

Mendes

GHS

Lizarelli

, et al. (2020) Antecedents and consequences of library service innovation: An investigation into Brazilian academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 46(6): 102235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102235.

13.

den Broeck

Cunningham

Eeckels

, et al. (2005) Data cleaning: Detecting, diagnosing, and editing data abnormalities. PLoS Medicine 2(10): e267.

14.

Denchev

Eris

KVD

(2021Education 4.0-5.0 and the post-information transformation of university libraries. NANo ranking found for “ICERI Proceedings.” Academia.Edu. https://www.academia.edu/download/101053188/ERIS_2021-art12sh.pdf

15.

Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitativeresearch/book233401

16.

Fourie

Meyer

(2016) Role of libraries in developing an informed and educated nation. Library Hi Tech 34: 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-01-2016-0009

17.

Goodman

Dias

Stafford

(2010) Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES fellows training program. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5(4): 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.33.

18.

Hunter

Perret

(2011) Can money buy happiness? A statistical analysis of predictors for user satisfaction. Journal of Academic Librarianship 37(5): 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.06.004.

19.

Huvila

Holmberg

Kronqvist-Berg

, et al. (2013) What is librarian 2.0 – new competencies or interactive relations? A library professional viewpoint. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 45(3): 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613477122.

20.

Joo

Cahill

(2019) The relationships between the expenditures and resources of public libraries and children's and young adults' use: An exploratory analysis of Institute of Museum and Library Services public library statistics data. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51(2): 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617709057

21.

Khan

Bhatti

(2018) Semantic web and ontology-based applications for digital libraries: An investigation from LIS professionals in Pakistan. Electronic Library 36(5): 826–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2017-0168.

22.

Król

(2020) Evolution of online mapping: From web 1.0 to web 6.0. Geomatics, Landmanagement and Landscape 1: 33–51. https://doi.org/10.15576/GLL/2020.1.33.

23.

Lankes

Silverstein

Nicholson

(2007) Participatory networks: The library as conversation. Information Technology and Libraries 26(4): 17–33. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v26i4.3267.

24.

Limwichitr

(2024) Academic library 4.0 and beyond: Investigating adaptation of academic libraries in Thailand towards a 4.0 landscape. The Journal of Academic Librarianship: 1–15. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267733656

25.

Makori, E. O (2012) Bridging the information gap with the patrons in university libraries in Africa: The case for investments in web 2.0 systemsNANo ranking found for “library review.”. Emerald.ComE Ondieki MakoriLibrary Review, 2012•Emerald.Com 61(1): 30–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531211207406.

26.

Matthews

(2009The Customer-focused library: re-inventing the public library from the outside-in. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cnfDEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Matthews,+Joseph+R.+(2009)&ots=8JOeURiWm9&sig=wKlYiDaoI-5WEX7ZujbMEAOpepQ

27.

McKay

Mckay

(2003) Effective Financial Planning for Library and Information Services. Routledge.

28.

Navik

Momin

(2020) Use of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in the library

29.

Neuman

Kiss

Kunding

, et al. (2011) A structural analysis of M protein in coronavirus assembly and morphology. Journal of Structural Biology 174(1): 11–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2010.11.021.

30.

Nguyen

Partridge

Edwards

(2012) Understanding the participatory library through a grounded theory study. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49(1): 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901051 ebpj.e-iph.co.uk +5.

31.

Noh

Y-H

Choi

M-J

Choi

Y-W

, et al. (2011) An analysis of user satisfaction of K university’s library service. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology 1(1): 61–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2011.1.1.061.

32.

Noh

(2013) A study on next-generation digital library using context-awareness technology. Library Hi Tech 31(2): 236–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831311329031.

33.

Noh

(2015) A study on evaluating digital illusion level of public library. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management 32(4): 167–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.167.

34.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1995) The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

35.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. https://books.google.com/books/about/Bowling_Alone.html?id=rd2ibodep7UC

36.

Rogers

(2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Diffusion_of_Innovations_5th_Edition.html?id=4wW5AAAAIAAJ

37.

Salas-Pilco

Xiao

(2023) Correction to: Artificial intelligence and learning analytics in teacher education: a systematic review. Education Sciences 13(9): 569–575. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090897.

38.

Salauddin

Kumar

(2020). User’s assessment on the library service quality in Tagore user’s assessment on the library service quality in Tagore: A study user’s assessment on the library service quality in Tagore library. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal) september: 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac

39.

Snyder

(2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

40.

Stephens

Cheetham

(2011) The impact and effect of learning 2.0 programs in Australian academic libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship 17(1): 31–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2011.539097.

41.

Suresh

Mohan

(2016, March 17) Service quality and its impact on user satisfaction in Indian University Library. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research, ICCIC 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIC.2015.7435792

42.

Tandi Lwoga

(2014) Integrating web 2.0 into an academic library in Tanzania. The Electronic Library 32(2): 183–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2012-0058 vlex.co.uk +3.

43.

Tennant

(2004) Managing the digital library. In http://lst-iiep.iiep-unesco.org/cgi-bin/wwwi32.exe/[in=epidoc1.in]/?t2000=019444/(100).

44.

Torraco

(2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review 4(3): 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

45.

Weinstein

Mcfarlane

(2017) How libraries can enhance customer service by implementing a customer value mindset. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 22(1): e1571. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1571.

46.

Wilson

(1997) Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Information Processing & Management 33(4): 551–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(97)00028-9

47.

Yang

Wang

(2021) Circulation services based on an intelligent library management system: A case study in the CAU library | 基于图书智能管理系统的流通工作探讨要要要以中国农业大学图书馆为例 Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture 33(7): 92–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.20-0861.