Google Book What?

I recently read a blog post by Stuart Weibel entitled “Cows and the Colossus.” A few thoughts I have:

1. The article was written in 2007 and mentions that Google Book Search  is likely to revolutionize access to books more than any single factor in the library world…” I have never used Google Book Search and often times I am reading 2-3 books a week.

2. I recognize Google’s infiltration of the library world…or search world. I do think there are benefits and that librarians should embrace those.

3. Discovery systems do embrace the “googlian hegemony,” but still require user instruction and a librarian fingerprint for full benefit. See my other blog post about this topic.

4. I especially agree with this statement: “Metadata searching (what Keller describes as subtle searching), in combination with novel methods of taxonomic search and citation cross-linking, dramatically improves discovery and navigation within large result sets.” This requires skill.

5. The world of copyright and intellectual property rights in this digital age takes a skilled dance between all involved. In the end the most users don’t care as long as they are able to access the materials they desire easily and efficiently.

6. No one wins if no one can compromise.

7. Librarians are spokespersons for the people.

What are your thoughts?

Digital Preservation Initiatives

Reading about digital preservation initiatives in place at the Library of Congress and also reading an outsider’s perspective in “Digital Preservation in a National Context: Questions and Views of an Outsider” by H. M. Gladney was both encouraging and challenging. I was encouraged to see that the librarian community is making strides in the talk and implementation of digital preservation. I was challenged by Gladney’s assessment of what still needs to be done and the broad view that must be kept.

In a previous blog post, I mentioned Digital and Born-digital items. The definition of the terms was not new or novel; however, the challenges we face in regards to digital items (regardless of if they are solely digital or not) was enlightening. Gladney’s article highlighted these self-same challenges and also raised a few others. According to Gladney, NDIPP would do well to reassess and redirect, especially in regards to their technical progress. Gladney’s answer is a Trustworthy Digital Object or TDO. I have to confess that much of the this is still a bit beyond me – I am working it through – but my take was that the difference is made at the bit level with retention of the bit-string. Once this is accomplished, the rest is “elementary, my dear Watson.”

Was this your take as well…I welcome insights as I continue to process.

Openness

The idea of mass digitization is exciting and alluring. Especially when considering special collections that would not be available to me (outside of travel and other expenses) otherwise; the idea of those collections being available to myself and others digitally is phenomenal. Ricky states in his blog post, “May I speak Openly about mass digitization,” “I think it’s the responsibility of non-profit, cultural heritage institutions to find ways to bridge that gap and work with the corporate world toward a public good.” I agree. The for-profit world prioritizes profit over people; it is up to the not-for-profit world to focus on the needs of the people and to promote and fight for the meeting of those needs. Within the library world, a right of the people emphasized is the right to open access of information. Mass digitization is a step in that direction – but it requires money (as all things do) and this means a partnership with profit organizations.

Information professionals have the privilege of “selling” the need to mass digitization and leading the way in its realization. This is a huge job and includes so many “fine print” items including: collaborations/partnerships with profiteering organizations; metadata standards and interoperability of digitized libraries; and stability and other concerns of digitized items. I agree with Ricky’s conclusion: “No matter what compromises we may make in finding ways to work with private partners, we must ensure that at some (hopefully not too distant) point in time, all restrictions will be lifted and the content will be openly accessible (limited only by rights inherent in the content itself).”