Despite some of the following comments, I still believe we need to
think harder about collections when it comes to this "'next
generation' library thing":
* Why "collect"? Don't you mean "provide access to" or
"provide records that link to"? --Dan Lester
* To me the question is not "what's in it?" but "what does it
connect to?" and "what are it's services?" --Karen Coyle
* And I got: I want to help people build their own personal
branch of the One Big Library, and to help them build their own
customized catalogue to that branch. --William Denton
IMHO, collections without services are useless, and services without
collections are empty. A library needs both collections AND services
in order to practice librarianship.
One part of librarianship is collection and preservation. Copying
things locally is not necessary for providing services against an
index (catalog), but creating local collections, whether they be
analog or digital, does offer two additional opportunities: 1) it
allows you to archive/preserve the materials, and 2) it provides a
way to index and display content in ways better meeting the needs of
your clientele. Put other ways, "Lot's of copies keep stuff safe",
and "I don't need your stinkin' interface, just give me the data."
A few years ago there was an Internet mantra, "Content is king."
These days it seem to be more like, "Context is king", but I believe
it is really a combination of the two. Content and context.
Collections and services. Great libraries will provide both.
--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame
Received on Mon Mar 19 2007 - 08:29:40 EDT