Friday, September 6, 2013


Week 2 Readings

Required Articles
Carvajal, D. (2007, October 28). European libraries face problems in digitalizing. The New York        Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/technology/28iht-            LIBRARY29.1.8079170.html?_r=1&

            D. Carvajal (2007) explains the attempts of European libraries to create a digital archives that would compete with Google. Named the European Digital Library, it would have “held the promise of a counterstrike to Google domination of digital archives” (Carvajal, 2007, para. 1), which, to some such as Jean-Noel Jeanneney, former leader of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, represents the encroaching dominance of American interpretation on European literature, history, and politics (Carvajal, 2007, para. 10). However, the libraries involved in the project face a crucial challenge: funds. The European Commission refuses to pay more than 60 million euros for the project – the additional basic digitization costs 250 million euros for over four years (Carvajal, 2007, para. 5), so the organizations are having trouble finding financial support from private backings.
            After reading C. E. Smith’s (2008) article, Carvajal (2007) illustrates a new, more realistic view on digitization. Smith (2008) remains ideal; according to him, Google is “liberating” books for all, allowing everyone to benefit from easier, freer access of ideas (Libraries and Access, para. 2). Thus he looks towards the future, believing in the positive results Google’s project will theoretically provide to all. Carvajal (2007), though, is concerned with the present, or at least the near future. As summarized above, she notes how European libraries and similar institutions feel threatened by Google rather than happy about what they are doing. To them, Google is their rival, a competitor in providing not only digital resources but in dictating ideas and marking international differences for future ages. As such, the two articles represents various parties involved in the aftermath of Google’s project: national and international, future and present, companies and libraries, to name a few. Such a reading is fascinating – digitization has become a greater issue than I have imagined, already dividing people up on how to use it.

 Smith, C. E. (2008, January-March). A Few Thoughts on the Google Books Library Project.           EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(1), 10-11. Retrieved from             http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/few-thoughts-google-books-library-project

            C. E. Smith (2008) begins his article by noting how he has noticed that a good number of people (who remains in question) are concerned over “Google’s initiative to scan thousands of books in major research libraries and make them available online” (Introduction, para.1). He, however, is not worried but enthusiastic about Google’s attempts. To him, such digitization will ensure that print materials will not become obsolete (Smith, 2008, Making the Past Accessible, para. 1), a wider range of people all over the country will have equal access to academic works (Smith, 2008, Libraries and Access, para. 2), and – since “it is, after all, the ideas that are essential” – the knowledge contained in these works will survive their former print forms and live on in the digital world (Smith, 2008, Conquering the Pre- and Post-Internet Digital Divide).
            I agree with his sentiments; Google is doing a service in providing relatively free access to such works. Smith’s wording concerning print resources and archives, though, annoys me. He states that if digital copies did not exist and only one option remained, “to go where the “old stuff” is kept, in archives somewhere in the basement or a dark attic,” users will seek the sources reluctantly (Smith, 2008, Conquering the Pre- and Post-Internet Digital Divide, para. 1). In a couple of sentences, he disregards the importance of the print sources and implies that archives are isolated, out-of-date, merely storage areas. Print still has its uses. It provides the original context of the sources, which can be overlooked as a digital work. Also, as a future archivist, I view archives in a way contrasting Smith’s assumptions; while archives do store “old stuff,” they also possess wide range of materials, including current holdings and documents, and analyze the works they have.

 Vaughan, J. (2005). Lied Library @ four years: technology never stands still. Library Hi Tech,          23(1), 34-49. doi:10.1108/07378830510586685#sthash.yZxRT7k6.dpuf

            J. Vaughan writes his case study on the Lied Library, which has been in existence for four years at the time of the publication. Describing the library as a leading institution among other academic libraries expert in technologies (Vaughan, 2005, p. 34), he outlines its origins and developments over the past few years. He also includes an in-depth analysis of the problems it faces currently, including finding ways to pay the expenses for maintaining and updating the systems (Vaughan, 2005, p. 40), calculating resource management, controlling the spread of malicious hardware, manipulating physical spaces, and dealing with security, hardware, and software problems (Vaughan, 2005, p. 40). At the end of the article, Vaughan (2005) evaluates what he believes is the future for the Lied library, citing such possible future problems as providing computer resources to all users (p. 47) or the change in leadership when the dean retired (p. 48).
            While I was reading the article, I felt that Vaughan put too much emphasis on his enthusiasm for Lied Library. I understand why he did so. It was his case study, so he would be positive about it. Additionally, I could be reading too much into it; the article is all about the library, providing it as a model for managing and organizing other libraries. How he describes it, though, is a little too much. He begins the main body of his article with “Given the title of this paper, it is appropriate to illustrate that technology never stands still, and such has been the reality at Lied Library” (Vaughan, 2005, p. 35) which reminds me a lot of old propaganda and newsreels. When he admits of any problems that occur, he is quick to mitigate them. For example, concerning security issues, Vaughan (2005) tries to lower concerns by explaining that the Systems area, computer room, and wiring closets remain safe (p. 44) and that, for the four years it has been open, the library has experienced little theft problems but “the goal is to have zero theft” (p. 45). He appears to be deflecting any thought of serious problems, trying to convince readers that the Lied Library is the best of its kind.

Background Article

IFLA Guidelines for Digitization Projects (2002)

The text provided gives guidelines that would “identify and discuss the key issues involved in the conceptualization, planning and implementation of a digitization project, with recommendations for “best practice” to be followed at each stage of the process” (McIlwaine 5). The guidelines seem to support this; it is full of details and covers many components of how to do a digital imaging project which I believe will benefit me if I should over tackle such a project. What caught my attention in the introduction was its explanation that the guidelines were collected for libraries and archives themselves alone (McIlwaine 6). Could only libraries and archives use them? At that, are they the only institutions who could use them to their full capacity? Maybe other complexes – not just IS institutions – could benefit from the guidelines. The world is becoming more technological, practically concerning digital devices. Digital imaging is not only a tool for the IS field, but could benefit others – companies, law firms, etc.

No comments:

Post a Comment