Boston, Massachusetts
May 17-19, 1995
Paul Evan Peters, Convener
Coalition for Networked Information
MR. CAMPBELL: Paul Evan Peters, Executive Director of the Coalition for Networked Information, is an individual who needs no introduction to this community.
He has helped the Association make its mark in the increasingly sophisticated technological world through development of our partnerships with EDUCOM and CAUSE, and Paul is here today to provide a framework for discussion to help us identify and articulate potential collaborative actions inherent in the current environment and the environment that we anticipate over the next five to ten years.
We hope that our time this morning will help to sharpen future actions and activities on the part of the Association to support ARL libraries as we realize the digital future.
MR. PETERS: Thank you. During our opening session, Drs. Gage and Seely mapped the technological and historical landscape for digital libraries, and later this afternoon we will focus on a number of specific digital library initiatives. So the aim of this session is to stimulate thinking and talking about research library strategies in this environment.
I think it picks up quite well on Dr. Seely’s call for us to consider matters dealing with the effects of information technology on library missions, products, and services. These matters are, if not under our control, at least subject to our influence. He also encouraged us to do careful thinking and deliberation in a proactive environment, and this session is intended to stimulate your work in that respect.
It seems worthwhile to give a brief definition of a digital library, if only to have something to push against and to focus on. The definition we have fixed upon for this meeting is one that appeared in the CAN-LINKED report, and on page 36 of a CLR report Karen Drabenstott produced late last year there are a couple of attributes I would like to call to your attention.
First of all, when we use the term digital library, we are not referring to a single entity. Digital libraries require technology to link the resources of many other digital libraries and information services. We are dealing with the concept of a linked system, a concept that digital libraries really bring to the fore. In addition, when we refer to a digital library we are thinking about a future in which the linkages among various entities will be transparent.
We also believe that an essential attribute of the digital library is universal access. Then there are two others, which were combined in a single bullet in the CAN-LINKED document, that the term digital library suggests that you have access to actual information instead of descriptions, or surrogates, of information. Secondly, the term digital library means more than digitized collections, a fact that will become clear as time goes by and more and more information is built in digital environments.
When you think about how to construct a digital library, there are at least three categories of strategies that I’m sure each of you have on mind. I would be surprised if some of your strategies couldn’t be described as defensive, and many of us have strategies that are also fairly competitive. However, the strategies we want to focus on during this session are collaborative strategies, strategies in which you work together and through ARL in order to create opportunities and to meet challenges in this new environment.
The purpose of this session is to discuss the following questions: How could ARL support the efforts of its members in their individual forging of digital library partnerships, systems, and services? And how could ARL play a leadership role in the development of a global digital library environment that enriches scholarship and promotes intellectual productivity?
To answer these questions, we will facilitate a discussion of future scenarios that describe environments in which such a collaboration may occur, during which small groups will consider the four scenarios from the perspective of two questions: Which of these four environments interests you the most? And secondly: What collaborative strategies come to mind as you reflect upon that environment?
A few words about the scenarios; the time frame we used for these environments is 15 years in the future, in the year 2010. It is a time frame that is far enough in the future to allow a suspension of disbelief, but not so far ahead that you have no stake in it. In writing these narratives, we sought to create descriptions that are defensible but not entirely satisfying or convincing. We are not asking you to decide which of the four to believe in, or which one you like the best. Instead, I would like you to consider the question of which one of them interests you most, considering the implications of each if that future were to come to pass. The future environment that provokes the most implications in your mind may be thought of as the one that interests you most.
The four scenarios presented to the audience follow.