As the timeline of our course moves forward to be a present day orientation, the articles we read more and more like accurate predictions of our present condition. Articles like Wrights “The Web That Wasn’t”, D’Elia et al and “The Impact of the Internet on Public Library Use” and others weave seamlessly into current discussions around the topic of the internet in our lives. Yet we cannot help but notice that each generation dreams only with the canvas of colors laid before it. It is not yet known what designs might shape our future that have yet to cross the drawing board of future librarians and information scientists.

Wright acknowledges as much in the first paragraph of his essay stating that “Tim Berners-Lee’s invention has already established itself as a world-changing technology (Wright p. 183)”. This articles however he tackles the task of acknowledging the work that lead up to the invention of Berners-Lee. Of the many who labored, most notable in my mind is Paul Otlet who predicted the internet in speaking of a workstation using multiple screens. Like the Memex envisioned by Bush, Otlet’s 1934 prediction of a “networked multimedia space” sees the world at the finger-tips of the information scientists on multiple screens and in multiple formats (Wright P.185).

This was to be expected from someone such as Otlet who attempted, in the “Bibliographique Universel” to create a “master bibliography of the world’s accumulated knowledge” in 1895 (Wright p.186). He would also develop Universal Decimal Classification, which while not popular in the United States is popular elsewhere around the world.

George D’Ella et al write of “baseline data concerning the evolving relationship between the public’s use of the library and the public’s use of the internet” (D’Ella Et al P. 802). Most salient of the study’s goals is to “identify decision criteria” around the choice between internet and computer use and to describe how the library compares on these decision criteria” (D’Ella Et al P. 804).

One expected but unfortunate correlation was found between high education, high income and high library use. The same trend proved to be true in regards to internet use. This documents clearly not only a digital divide, but indeed an information divide. However they found that overall the study “does not demonstrate (at this time) that recency, length or frequency of use of the Internet are affecting why people use the library” (D’Ella Et Al P.808). However the study did note that the average percentage of respondents who used only the internet (20.3%) is twice the number who used only the library (9.7%) (D’Ella Et al. P.810).

Overall the decision-making logic for choosing the internet revolved around issues of convenience, the ability to customize the experience and the perceived immediacy of the information. Decision-making logic around choices for the library involved issues of cost, accuracy and “protection of user privacy” (D’Ella p.812). The reasons for using the internet reflected a desire for convenience, and also for a range of options amongst online resources.

The Halfner article from the New York Times on November 21, 2005 recalls Sidney Verba of the Harvard University Library. It is not merely a fluff piece about a happy librarian, but rather a piece concerning his involvement with the sometimes controversial Google Book Project whose aim is to digitize entire collections. The article notes that in addition to Harvard, the University of Michigan, Stanford and the New York Public Library are all part of the effort, who “expects to scan 15 million books from the libraries”.

For those of us who have had the pleasure of reading works such as “Doublefold” by Nicholson Baker, we wait for the part of the story where someone decries digitization. Yet it was not Baker who voiced his concern in a litigious manner. It was understandably, the book publishers who own the rights to the materials being digitized. All of this leaves the project with only public domain materials to scan.

Meanwhile one has to wonder about the efforts of publishers to digitize their materials independently. If it was a battle for the preservation of profit or a worry over the loss of the printed word none can be sure. One thing is for certain though; there is a lot of paper involved either way. Verba speaks of scanning samples of works to give the reader an idea of a title’s contents. However, some such as Patricia Schroder, a congresswoman from Colorado who happens to be President and Chief Executive of the American Association of Book Publishers decries efforts outside those of the publisher’s themselves to digitize works that they do not hold the copyright for.

Anthony Grafton’s “Future Reading” quotes Kevin Kelly who wrote for Wired Magazine of a future in which “all the books in the world become a single liquid fabric of interconnected words and ideas (Grafton P.1).” Kelly further tells of a future in which texts could be merged and analyzed to distinguish between that which civilization knows and that which is left to be learned.

Readers of this blog and attendees of this class will clearly recognize the continuation of a theme within the words of Kelly. It is the same theme that lead to the development of the Memex and indeed the same theme that lead to the development of the Cutter and Dewey cataloging systems. Some men and women set out to write the great American novel, others set out to catalog each one of their attempts. Grafton’s article tells of the work of but a handful of the organizational luminaries throughout the ages who stared down vast swaths of knowledge and dared to classify it.

According to Grafton, the cradle of life, Mesopotamia is also the cradle of organization. For it was there in the third century B.C.E. that attempts were made to catalogue the famed Library at Alexandria. This would be followed some six centuries later with “The Cannon Tables” developed by Euseibus to gather and organize all of the early Christian writings.

Such efforts continued, into the 16^th century which found skilled librarians advising notable printing houses. As history moved forward, and the amount of information available increased, librarians were used to make sense of the increasingly complex ideas and works.

In more modern times, we have seen the rise of the micro-film and the rise of Google. Unlike micro-film machines, a large portion of the public owns computers. This allows them to scroll through information faster and with greater ease than they were previously able. According to one source quoted in the article “95 percent of searches begin at Google” (Grafton p.3).

Yet even as Google attempts to synthesize all the information from the world’s greatest libraries, it too has limitations. The article notes that works previous to 1923 are not subject to copyright restrictions with regards to digitization. However works written after that date are out of the public domain. It is limited also by the technology it uses for digitization. Some books are too fragile to be digitized safely. These efforts will be taken up by other concerned parties with adequate facilities for the job. Furthermore, the article notes that the archives of the patent office, a treasure trove of “brilliance and lunacy” is not included in Google’s efforts (Grafton p.4). Grafton’s article “Adventures in Wonderland” further documents the logic behind even attempted digitization by noting that there are a great number of organizations with a wealth of information, and a great number of places with few information sources.

Bernard Frischer’s “The Ultimate Internet Café” foretells a future in which the great research libraries embrace their destiny as repositories of knowledge through use of theatrical projection displays akin to a modern day interactive MovieTone Newsreel adapted to the needs of the academic and professional community.

The article tells of one such project in use in 2002 at UCLA. In his essay, the author argues for the standardized implementation of software for, and space in which such experiences might be possible in the library. This argument is based on a supposition that future libraries will be judged on the “quality of the experience” they offer (Frischer p.44). The author argues for a future need that encompasses multi-screen memex-esque experience. He flatly states that books should be digitized and placed into storage. The newfound space should be used for such systems as he proposes.

The article also makes the case that such an effort will assist not only users but publishers as well. It will in theory allow them to deliver up to date information in High bandwidth formats. Such materials not suited for display over computers, he advocates should be reserved for viewing in the theatre mentioned earlier by the author.

In focusing also on the architecture of the library, he suggests that libraries are about more than books and knowledge. Rather they are also about the experience of reading such books and finding such knowledge. He states that users of technology love places in which to show off such wares. He suggests that this is the reason why internet cafes are popular. This despite the many apartment dweller who might state the reason for their use of such space as having to do more with the upstairs neighbors fascination with 80’s hair metal. In the world of Frischer (p51) the library should be modeled after “the ultimate Internet Café”. One has to wonder what the lattes will cost in such a space given the tax base needed to build it.