Comments on an Address by David Levy concerning 
		 'Building Usable Digital Libraries' 

			     presented at 
		  the TRLN Digital Library Symposium 
			Research Triangle, NC 
			  December 12, 2003


David, I'll speak directly to you as if this were a conversation.
First, I have to say I'm a technologist, and most definitely not a
librarian.  I have loved both specific libraries, and the *idea* of
public libraries, since the age of 3, and I hope my remarks will be
interpreted in that light.

As a technologist, let me confirm what you already know; there are
great things yet to come from technology.  

For instance, by the year 2010, one terabyte of storage will cost $20.
That's equivalent to carrying around in your computer half a million
books.

By that time, Internet access will be ubiquitous (at least, in
technologically advanced societies) and essentially free, and multiple
megabits per second of wireless bandwidth will be available anywhere
that has cell phone service.

There will be major advances in search engine quality with respect to
classification, intelligence, and presentation of results.  I look
forward to being able to make a query such as the following:
"Get me the most authoritative source of information about population
trends in the American South.  Make sure it includes some graphs and
summarize the main points."

Lastly, display devices will be lightweight, extremely power efficient,
bendable, and possibly reflective of incident light, so that they
can be used in bright light... like paper!

I believe technology like this, rather than threatening or obsoleting
libraries, will expand and enhance them.  The contents of libraries
will be much broader than books: images, and video, and speeches, and
music, and databases, and other things.  The physical "reach" of
libraries will be so much greater, and the library buildings will be
so much more than storage for texts.  It's already happened...
libraries are pretty lively places these days!

I have to admit, though, that technology poses substantial challenges to
the creation, access, and use of intellectual property.  Besides the
obvious ones, these challenges include the following:

First is the struggle between stability and currency.  This is an
issue highlighted in your book, "Scrolling Forward", partly using
Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" as an example.  We are somewhat accustomed
to multiple editions of a book, versions of a poem, or variations on a
musical theme.  What happens, however, when an author or a composer
can modify his or her productions daily?  There's a potential for
rapid improvement in the work, to be sure.  This comes at the risk of
confusion ("did you read the version from this month or last month?").
There is also the temptation to publish immature work (when the
creator thinks "I can always fix it later"), and so forth.  For
libraries, this greatly calls into question what it means to "archive"
something.  Will libraries have to archive every variation of a work,
and all the branches of its revision, perhaps by different schools
creating competing versions?  Imagine for a moment archiving the
World-Wide Web every few minutes; seems impossible, doesn't it!

As to stability of form, I don't see it happening anytime soon. It may be
exhausting to contemplate the multiplicity of formats that information
takes these days, or that it will take.  It's not going to settle
down, however, if we continue to insist on "new and improved" 
capabilities, and most of us tend to like those capabilities.

The second challenge is the struggle between original and derivative
works.  There is an opportunity for real advances in the ability of
those who appreciate and understand a work to add to it, but there
will be major conflicts over the rights of creators and commentators,
and confusion about what's original and what's not.  Authenticating
what is produced to prevent forgeries, or mistakes in attribution, will
become of great importance.  

The third challenge will be the inability to carefully evaluate and
index content.  This is becoming overwhelming given the rate at which
content is produced.  In my field alone, which should most benefit
from and make use of technology, it becomes harder and harder to tell
what is essential from what is peripheral, and to find what is
essential.  It also becomes more and more expensive for libraries to
have "one copy of everything".  

A non-challenge, which is the one that is getting all the attention,
is the issue of unlicensed copying and distribution of content will be
solved technically, but maybe not in the way most people expect.  The
solution, in my opinion, is to make accessing licensed copies so easy,
and so cheap, that people voluntarily accept it as the normal way of
getting what they want.  This contrast of control of content vs access
to content has particular relevance for libraries.

Finally, perhaps to a certain degree reflecting my academic concerns,
how will we reward the investment of time necessary to produce work of
the highest quality?  Will we count page views? Hyperlinks to the
work? Electronic downloads and copies stored?  Ratings by individuals?
Personally I think some of the Amazon reviewers are lacking in both
judgment and taste; there has to be something better than that.

As you said, libraries have earned enormous trust in society.  As the
quantity of information soars, and its average quality declines, we
will increasingly rely on others to help us make good choices.
Librarians may be subject experts, but they are also professionals
with a keen and discriminating eye for value and longevity, and they
are trustworthy (in the sense of having no "ax to grind" when making
recommendations).  If anything, their usefulness will increase, not
decrease.

I, like you, still own treasured texts from childhood (Kipling in my
case), and reading them and viewing the illustrations on a computer
would not have felt the same at that age.  At my current stage of
life, however, the impact of what I read has little association with
the medium on which it is presented.  The words of Tolstoy, or
Galsworthy, on a screen, an electronic page, in ink on paper, or
coming from the speakers of my stereo, would be just as thrilling.

Finally, one topic I will differ on.  I don't think the process of
developing technologies will ever be slow, deliberate, or reflective.
I think efforts to direct it are largely doomed.  No matter what we
may think, storage is going to be cheap, we're all going to be highly
connected, and we're going to have lots of choices about how to find
and view information, and there's going to be a lot of it out there.

I agree the choice and deployment of those technologies should be a
bit more careful; however, too much deliberation will convince many
that libraries aren't viable.  Libraries can play an important role in
shaping standards, and should.  I want libraries to be exciting and
inspiring and creative and welcoming.  I want to see people bragging
about the breadth and verve of their library the same way they brag
about their local sports teams.  Let's hear it for the NC State
Digital Librarians!