[Sigia-l] integrated catalogues?

[Alexander Johannesen]

On 10/26/05, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> Do you see libraries, as we knew them, becoming what this is to movies?
> <http://www.movingimage.us>

Wow, good point, and yes, they just might become that. The physical
space of the library certainly isn't used for what it's designed for;
our IT store-room is an old movies theatre.(!!)

When you think about it, the book in its paper-design is dying. While
the library has been the token of culture, knowledge and civilisation
for thousands of years, this is about to change, because the nature of
the book and information is changing. Libraries used to be early
adopters, but these days it's all about standards, commitees and
policy. When such ilk creeps into the very process that earlier
delivered innovation, you're screwed.

> Is it possible for successive generations that rarely visit the physical
> space to know and care about the library?

Well, it's possible in other fields, so I'm sure it's possible here; I
know and care about Monteverdi and his music and importance in music
history even if he died 370 years ago. :) Luckily the library
buildings are built rather sturdy and can function as shopping-malls
or hotels or something.

> Is it possible for the digital, non-library world to hold sufficient
> reservoir of our collective knowledge, present and past, to render libraries
> largely irrelevant?

Only if the libraries choose to ignore the fact that the world is in
dramatic change. And who can blame them? The world of books and
knowledge has been pretty steady for the last 3000 years.

> Is that desirable?

Only if the libraries become what we the people want. I think there is
a lot of basic philosophy about what a library is amongst librarians
that doesn't match up to what the world thinks the library should be.
I fear the library is becoming something that is of special rather
than general interest.

Keeping things around out of special interest is an expensive
undertaking best left to the world of museums. Lots of people point to
the fact that libraries have 'collections and records keeping' as a
huge part of their being, but there are some who says that archiving
is best left to archivers, and frankly, as the shere amount of
information grows, librarians can't hope to keep up unless they become
more specialised and diverted. The old library will die. Who knows
what the new one will look like.

> Why and how would libraries become hotbeds of innovation to revive their
> fortunes?

Why? If libraries have the will to survive, they will need the will to
innovate. How? The usual; taking risks and paths less travelled,
redefine themselves, and don't take metadata so darn seriously.

Look, I' m sorry for my somewhat forlorn response to this. I work for
a library, I love the ideal, I love this library, and I see it slowly
dying because we're slow movers. There was a time when slow-movers had
a lot of credibility to them, but these days that is the very thing
that will kill it off. At least that ideal of keepers of culture,
knowledge and civilisation. It makes me a bit sad, for I feel mostly
unable to change things for the better. Perhaps its a people thing,
maybe its just me, but I don't feel this is the best place to solve
real problems. Perhaps, again, this is just all wishful thinking; that
my idea of what I would like the library to be simply isn't so and
maybe never was, and I've been following this mirage for far too long.

I'll let you know what I find out. :)


Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________