as you will know I am a big supporter of public libraries. And, in terms of greater co-operation, I can see the value of a ‘one big library’ concept. Where it becomes a problem to me is when it assumes that all libraries are the same and that therefore all libraries ought to do the same things. Or are able to do the same things. Neither of which is true.

If we can balance the locality of our libraries with the diffuse nature of so much of what is available, we’ll be getting it right. Bowebird is on the way with the notion of a great deal of ‘common’ stuff being shared. so that local libraries can focus on providing the truly local stuff.

and i think that’s the focus of your point with this post…

but i am also a big supporter of the position that people
across the planet should be able to summon up, at will,
on-screen copies of every book that’s ever been printed.
(and every magazine, pamphlet, document, and so on…)

i don’t care too much what we _name_ the capability –
brewster kahle calls it “universal access to knowledge”,
which seems to me to get across the essence of it, but
“one big library” doesn’t seem to be too bad either –
so please suggest a term for it, and then we can get on
with the much more important task of bringing it about.

but don’t let the semantics stand in the way, please…

-bowerbird

p.s. and one of the biggest benefits to “local” libraries
from “one big library” is they don’t have to spend funds
duplicating the services offered by the “one big library”.
that cost savings might be the thing that rescues them.

As I mentioned back at my blog, I’m going because this is an unconference. I recently went to an conference at IBM (and surely it is “one big … ” something or other …). It was good, but the topics were staid. Off to the side, some renegades organized an unconference, where anyone could host a session on any subject. I took the opportunity to talk about EIFL-FOSS, the group that is trying to use open source software to help libraries in developing countries (http://www.eifl.net). Lots of divergent thinking was happening at those sessions. What a sizzler! I’m not saying every unconference will be like that, but it got me looking for more.

When it comes to library technology, the conversation will eventually lean toward “one big library”. There are always efficiencies to be gained by integrating digital information systems. But library technology is only a part of the library picture; I believe it is the smaller part. The greater part of libraries is its physical space, collections, real-life patrons and communities, and that is the level on which localization occurs. I think we agree that both digital and physical libraries can and should co-exist, and will do so for the forseeable future.

I have not signed up to do a session at the One Big Library Unconference. But I will think about it.

- from the point of view of our clients/customers/patrons – they really don’t distinguish between us. I have worked in law firm libraries for almost 20 years and in some ways for the attorneys I was an extension of every librarian (or, rather, library staff member) they had ever met since childhood

- related to this, from an advocacy point of view we do need to start paying attention to what is happening in libraries other than just our own. What affects one of us can affect all of us. I drew a connection between what is happening in public libraries to what can be/is happening in private law firm libraries in my most recent LLRX.com column http://www.llrx.com/columns/tao13.htm

I think it is important we be engaged in what is happening in all of our industry and with all of our profession. It is easy to get caught up in the workaday life and details of our individual jobs and our corner of the library space.

It’s time we broaden our horizons. To me, that is what the point of this particular gathering will be about.

Cheers,
Connie

Dan has a slightly different idea of what the One Big Library is, I think. I hope he’ll say something about it!

I suspect I’d continue to disagree with Dan, cordially and probably involving a long conversation over a couple of drinks. I suspect we’d both find the conversation worthwhile. It wouldn’t be the first time.

So maybe the friction is that we want certain kinds of unification–but we (at least I!) really don’t want other kinds of unification. That makes things more difficult, also more interesting.