Ann,
Questions concerning
previous post:
-
Is this study available anywhere?
-
Who is the committee chair?
-
I miss the connection between public service and "real big changes". How
do these things relate?
-
What does NetLibrary have to do with document delivery? (they provide the
full text of "books")
-
Would like to hear about you frustration with Wesleyan
Not just interested in what's happening at Trinity but I would like to
see what "they" call a reasonable study. While I don't think that paper
will "ever" go away I can't see paper being a reasonable solution to undergraduate
education for 25 years.
(Humbly
Presenting the Kennison)
Proposal
for Evaluating Any and All Library Activity
(including
the selection of directors)
Content vs. Software
In my humble opinion there exist a very simple measure of current and future
library activity. I'm looking to the environment outside of academia for
its articulation but none the less I think it appropriate. Bill Gates thinks
the future is in "software" vs. the AOL guys who are betting on "content".
How does this debate (content vs. software) play in the library? (Is
there such a thing as debate in the library). Would you hire a new director
who never mentioned these things?
There are 2 very important happenings that are critical to libraries
(though neither of them is being conducted by librarians):
-
After 10 years there is a real movement under foot concerning pre-print
servers (the Open Archive Initiative). The research universities
of the world, I think, are going to finally move on this (with or with
out librarians but with library moneys). It is far from perfect (but much
cheaper that funding librarians and libraries). This is the only way that
Academia can get any control over *CONTENT*
and serial costs. (It has a software
component, managing the digital documents, but its reason for being is
to control content).
-
The other major happening is the "linking"
of citations to documents being done by commercial publishers and
the likes of OCLC, OVID, SilverPlatter. This is pure software. (along with
standard of course). The problem is that in order to truly make linking
work you have to have control of *all* the content in the world (not likely
to happen by any one commercial entity and very unlikely to happen through
co-operation). The most obvious solution is to make this software "open
source".
In my head, everything that is done in the library can (and should)
be evaluated in the light of these to issues. Everyone should ask themselves
"Am I creating or making
available information resources in digital format or am I creating or facilitating
the "linking" of these resources". If the answer is "no",
then you need to find a way to stop doing that job. As Peter Drucker once
said " It's not about doing things "right". It is about doing the "right"
things". These are the right things!
These principle are not difficult to understand nor to communicate.
We don't need position papers or convoluted argument. What we need are
librarians willing to implement such a simple proposal. Unfortunately
our unwillingness (or inability) to act leaves our fate in the hands of
some administrator who may or may not have any idea of the information
landscape.
I would love to hear your opinions on these matters and hear where you
thinking is taking you. (You said that my thinking was not yours). I would
also enjoy your commentary on my proposal for evaluating library activity.
Any yes, lets have lunch (should we invite Vincent?)
That rabble rouser from the mountains,
Brian