ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries September 1 9 9 5 /5 4 7 Conference Circuit Building the digital library By Robert Renaud Valuable insights from “Digital Librañes ’9 5 ” Over o n e hundred librarians, com puter sci­entists, and research ers m et in Austin, Texas, Ju ly 11– 13, to attend “Digital Libraries ’95, T he Secon d International C on feren ce on the Theory and Practice o f Digital Libraries.” T h e majority o f the 21 papers presented at the con feren ce drew lessons from actual efforts to build digital libraries. Am ong the topics ad­ dressed w ere financial paym ent mechanism s, collection developm ent, interface design, and access to spatial data. T he co n feren ce’s practi­ cal orientation, com bined with a diverse group o f sp eakers, p rod uced valu able insights. Al­ though all the papers m et a high standard, I thought that several stood out. Judgm ent needed to scan documents W illiam T. Crocca and William L. Anderson o f X ero x provided a vendor perspective o n the challeng es o f building digital libraries. They d e s c rib e d th eir in v o lv e m e n t in th e CLASS project at Cornell University and the exp eri­ m ent in electronic reserves at Indiana Univer­ sity Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). W ithout backgrounds in library science, Crocca and Anderson approached th ese assignm ents with a clean slate. What they found frequently surprised them . In o n e part o f their paper, C rocca and Anderson list and discuss the as­ sumptions that they brought to these assign­ ments. Their exp erien ce led them to question statem ents that many librarians w ould readily a ccep t such as “searching is a high-priority ca­ pability” and “autom ation is about simplifying w o rk .”1 O n e such assum ption interested me b e ca u se it related to w ork bein g d one at my library. C rocca and Anderson thought at the outset o f the project that the process o f scan ­ ning d ocu m ents w ould b e sim ple, low -level work. They found, to the contrary, that scan­ ning archival docum ents required a high d e­ gree o f skill and judgment. Researchers w a n t answ ers not just access Nancy A. Van H ouse o f the University o f Cali­ fornia (UC), B erkeley, described h er research into user need s and assessm ent for the UC-Ber keley Electronic Environmental Library Project. A multidisciplinary project funded under the NSF/NASA/ARPA Digital Libraries Initiative, this library supports d ecision m akers in the area o f environm ental planning. T hese individuals rep­ resent a diverse com m unity o f stockholders. Van H ouse’s findings point to the problem atic nature o f m easuring use am ong diverse users, how new forms o f information influence the nature o f w ork, and the perplexing nature o f inform ation search es. Her com m ents on the search process may hit a nerve in librarians “ Their [users’] b ehavior can p erhaps better be described a s information trolling than inform ation se a rch . W hen som ething re le v a n t floats p ast, they snag it. . . . ” d edicated to using cataloging tools. “T heir [us­ ers’] behavior can perhaps better b e described as inform ation trolling than inform ation search. W hen som ething relevant floats past, they snag it: a m ention in a conversation, a paper sent to them to review, som ething stum bled across on Robert R en au d is team leader, B ibliographic Access, a t the University o f A rizona Library, Tucson; e-m ail: renaud@ library.arizona.edu mailto:renaud@library.arizona.edu 5 4 8 /C&RL News the Web. When they do search for informa­ tion, they are likely to simply call an expert. When they do formal literature searching, their attention to detail is surprisingly low.”2 Van House relates this behavior to the fact that de­ cision-makers want answers to questions, not just access to documents. The design of digital libraries therefore needs to fit into the dynamic, messy, and real world that her research de­ scribes. In defense of ca ta logers While the majority o f papers focused on prac­ tical experiences, others addressed b roader themes. David M. Levy of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center discussed “Cataloging in the Digital Order.” As a com puter scientist, Levy has w orked to understand the nature of cata­ loging and its role in providing access to digi­ tized information. In the course of his paper, Levy manages to describe cataloging in a lucid and thoughtful way that spans both print and electronic libraries. He also undertakes a spir­ ited defense of cataloging as part of an “‘invis­ ible’ social infrastructure by which most things, not just library collections, are maintained.”3 For beleaguered technical services librarians, Levy’s fresh appreciation of the role o f cataloging as “order-making” helping scholars to “engage in a dialogue across communities and disciplines” is welcome and gratifying.4 Libraries or computer-based services? Perhaps the most challenging speaker does not appear in the conference proceedings. Clifford Lynch of the University o f California gave a keynote speech that turned assumptions basic to the conference upside down. He questioned Corrections • The affiliation for Rochelle Amores, a reporter for the ACRL National Conference review published in the June 1995 issue, was incorrectly noted. She is affiliated with Cali­ fornia State University, San Marcos. • The “Internet resources for conserva­ tism” article in the July/August 1995 issue listed an incorrect address for the Rush Home P ag e. T h e c o r r e c t a d d r e s s is h t t p : / / w w w .w ell.com /user/srhodes/rush.htm l. The editors regret both these errors. w hether digital libraries w ere libraries at all, or simply com puter-based services. He also asked us to look into the future and consider w hether the openness of the Internet, which underpins so much of the acςess offered by digital librar­ ies, w ould continue once the commercial p o ­ tential o f online services is realized. Lynch re­ minded us that digital libraries are developing against a backdrop of the increasing consoli­ dation of the computing and telecommunica­ tions industries into a small set o f dominant players. After two-and-a-half days of intense paper sessions and expert forums, I felt a little dazed. Nevertheless, I left the conference with several clear impressions. First, the projects discussed at Digital Libraries ‘95 focus on relatively nar­ row clienteles and, most commonly, niches within the scientific and technical community. Second, com puter scientists are frequently tak ing the lead in designing and implementing digital libraries, even w hen that role involves rediscovering the library science literature. Third, most digital libraries remain at an early stage of developm ent that leaves many impor­ tant issues unanswered. Finally, since they are almost always based on the Internet, digital li­ braries rest on a foundation that will be subject to increasing levels o f regulation and commer­ cialization. As Lynch pointed out, these trends may, in the future, place into question basic assumptions about libraries and the intellectual freedom that they have com e to represent. The full co n feren ce p ro ceed in g s for Digi­ tal Libraries ‘95 are available o ver th e World W ide W eb at th e follow ing URL: h ttp ://c s d l. tam u.edu/D L 95/. This site also contains in fo rm atio n for o rd erin g th e p a p e r v ersio n o f the proceedings. Notes 1. William T. Crocca and William L. Ander­ son, “Delivering Technology for Digital Librar­ ies: Experiences as Vendors,” in Proceedings o f Digital Libraries ’95: The Second A n n u a l Con­ feren ce on the Theory a n d Practice o f Digital Libraries: 4-6. 2. Nancy A. Van House, “User Needs As­ sessment and Evaluation for the UC Berkeley Electronic Environmental Library Project,” in Proceedings o f Digital Libraries ’95, 75. 3. David M. Levy, “Cataloging in the Digital Order,” in Proceedings o f Digital Libraries ’95, 35. 4. Ibid., 36. ■ http://csdl http://www.well.com/user/srhodes/rush.html September 1 9 9 5 /5 4 9 Faced w ith shrin k in g budgets? T h e n it pays to have th e new edition of Annual Register of Grant Support on h and to keep you well- inform ed w ith everything you need to know about grants and funding. 3,100 organizations offering over $100 billion in non-repavable funding.. and much of it is never awarded! Each year, grants in excess of $100 billion become available... and m uch of this funding is never awarded because m ost eligible grant seekers are simply unaware of this funding. W ith Grant Support 1996, you can explore th e funding potential of such large and prom inent sources as: American Cancer Society • Ben & Jerry’s Foundation • The Boston Women’s Fund • Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. Foundation • Dow Jones Foundation • Hughes Aircraft Company • The Knight Foundation • Mellon Foundation • Metropolitan Museum of A rt • NASA • National Endowment for the Humanities • UNESCO and more than 3,100 other organizations offering non-repavable funding. Start by identifying the sources offering support to your field of interest via 11 major subject areas and more than 60 sub-categories — from architecture and physics to agriculture and literature. Once you've targeted potential funding sources, each current and updated listing in Grant Support 1996 gives you all the information (eligibility require­ m ents, contact people, Internet addresses, type of support available, representative awards, etc.) needed for an error-free proposal. There's even a step-by-step guide on proposal writing that provides you w ith explanations of the different kinds of proposals, ideas for structuring documents, and suggestions on what to include and w hat not to include. . Everything you need ... risk-free! From the first steps in research to th e submission of an effective proposal, Grant Support 1996 helps you avoid common mistakes and oversights — everything you need to know in a single, affordable volume! Order your copy today, and if you're not convinced that it helps simplify the entire grant application process, return it w ithin 30 days for a full, unquestioned refund. S e ptem ber 1 9 9 5 • 0 -8 3 5 2 -3 6 7 1 -4 • c. 1 ,2 7 5 pp. • $ 1 8 9 .9 5 First-Time S tanding O rder Price: $170.95 Save 10% with first-time standing orders — call for details! 1-800 To - 5 ord er, call Dial “ 1 ” fo r Cu stom er S e rv 2 ice 1 and - a s 8 k fo 1 r O 1 pera 0 tor . GS. You can a ls o fa x you o rd e r to 1-90 8 -66 5 -66 8 8 .