Already some foes of public libraries cite Google or other online content as a reason why publibs should be allowed to fade away or outsourced to for-profit companies. And now the DPLA wittingly or unwittingly is chipping away at the very special meaning of the term “public library” in the U.S.? See Web address below.

Remember, too, that my objection is not to a Darnton-style “Republic of Letters” collection per se, of which I heartily approve. Rather it is to the misuse of the words “public library” and the possible preemption of a genuine full-service public digital system with public governance. Thanks.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/digital-underclass-what-happens-when-the-libraries-die/14554?tag=rbxccnbzd1

Are you concerned that public libraries will disappear if there’s a digitized collection? I’m trying to understand you objection more clearly.

http://librarycity.org/?p=734

As Darnton reminds us, other countries have already undertaken the task of creating national digital libraries. He also mentions the possibility of Google assisting in this project, and I would hope that it would be willing to do so. Interestngly, as noted above, it was Google’s potential involvement in French efforts to digitize its colleaction that resulted in the French government’s stepping up and supplying funds.

A good start would be for the DPLA and LOC to cooperate on a separate LOC-oriented wiki–with, however, some overlapping pages covering shared interests such as technology and the relationships between various organizations. With more structure and fewer ambiguities, the NDL movement might draw more attention, especially with LOC raising its profile here. That could also result in a significant amount of public money in time. LOC is, after all, the Library of _Congresss_. See my LibraryCity.org essay from yesterday mentioning the political angles.

As for Amanda French’s fascinating post, I think a U.S. version of the Korean’s mini-knowledge center would be fun, but I would rather see the money go for basics like redundant, distributed preservation (very much in keeping with the LOC’s current goals as I understand them). Let the headquarters be within an existing LOC building–good both in terms of politician-pleasing economy and in terms of helping the virtual sufficiently reflect the physical holdings of LOC.

Unified negotiations with vendors via a consortium and/or a unit with the NDL system? Absolutely. The Harper26Collins outrage shows the need for libraries to acquire more control over their destinies.

In some ways Library of Congress would seem the ideal place to help spearhead what David is urging–and I believe that there would be at least some internal support for such work. Yet, I am not confident about external support. From those I know at the Library, I don’t see the danger of a lack of respect for local libraries or an interest in intruding on their governance/affairs. I hope to say more on this later when time permits.

I too wish we could see/hear mention of digital library projects in ‘Meet the Press’ venues, but we don’t. And I am also not always certain how much we truly value education in the U.S. despite how much the issue is discussed. From the Koreans I’ve met and from the students I’ve known who have taught in Korea, it seems that it is nation whose value of education is translated regularly into action.

Finally, the Consortium formed in Korea that Amanda French discusses:

In 2002, an assessment of a Korean digital library effort for university researchers called the Research Information Service System (RISS) discovered that 95% of its users were seriously frustrated by their inability to access the full text of foreign journal articles. Korean libraries simply could not afford to pay the permission fees. Four years later, in 2006, Korea had formed a consortium: the Korea Electronic Site License Initiative (KESLI), partly modeled on OhioLink, increased “the use levels of scholarly information to six times higher than average than before.”

recalls the discussions we have had about that need in the U.S. (though admittedly we were using the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), “established by the UK further and higher education funding councils in 2006 to negotiate with publishers and owners of digital content,” as a model, and our discussions were directed within the context of higher education.