I agree, but will take it a step further:  we are in a period of technological convergence.  Our cell phones are cameras, organizers, and many things once reserved for the realm of computers (such as web browsers and e-mail software).  Products like the iPhone, Droid, and Nexus have shown what can be done in a small form factor.

Take things a few steps further, and there is no reason that future devices won’t have larger screens (folding? flexible?) that will serve well as e-readers.  In fact, one can keep adding software functionality and see that these will be primarily limited by our ability to interact with them.  The best smartphone keyboards only approximate what we can do with a standard keyboard, and I suspect that fixing that problem will be a quantum leap for users.

I expect this convergence to continue, until we will be carrying our computers on our hips and simply connecting to whatever networks and user devices we need at a particular location.  This is a common thing for web browsing and e-mail, watch for it with other functionality.  And yes, the “cloud” will play a big part (even though we are currently seeing a backlash against it).

When this day (year) arrives, will libraries be ready to integrate these new behaviors into our routines?  Will we see “reference as a service” or location based offerings become part of our forte?  I suspect that it will be like many current library technologies… we will get there eventually, with some leading the way.

found via Bobbi L. Newman at Library by Day

I suspect (but truly don’t know) that this is because of the firestorm of attention he received surrounding a position paper he wrote, and that his company was circulating to some of their customers.  If comments were enabled on his post, the following thought (probably compressed) would have been left by me.  Now it is a post all its own:

What libraries need now, more now then ever, is a good, open discussion of software and service models.  Many of our problems derive from weaknesses in those models, and many of our future problems will derive from weaknesses in the models we choose to move forward with.

The New York Times article is a good example of reporting that misses the elephant in the room:  the Open Source model is not the same as the Closed Source model.  The closed source model uses sales and company profit to determine success.  An open source project could succeed in that way, but looking simply at this ignores the model.

If a group of people put the effort into creating, maintaining, distributing, and using an open source software product, it will survive.  If the project is dynamic, and responds to the needs of the users, it will thrive.  If it does all of the above better than the closed source companies that make competing products, then it is not fair to judge them based only on sales and profit.

One other thing to add to the mix:  don’t ignore the wealth created and saved by those who use the product.  If this were calculated and compared, there might be a few surprises in store for companies, including some companies that have libraries for their customers.

1. Professional. Produced by staff in support of particular business aims. Think of cataloging, or data produced within the book industry, or A&I data.
2. Crowdsourced. Produced by users of systems.Think of tags, reviews and ratings on consumer sites.
3. Programmatically promoted. Think of automatic extraction of metadata from digital files, automatic classifcation, entity identification, and so on.
4. Intentional. Data about choices and transactions which support analytics or business intelligence services. Think about ranking, relating, recommending in consumer sites (e.g people who like this also like this) based on collected transaction data.

The traditional library approach has been the first category (Professional).  The downside is that it it far too time consuming to keep up with the firehose of new resources.  When was the last time you heard someone discuss cataloging the internet?

The challenge with the remaining options is the opposite.  There is a great deal of metadata being generated, and the challenge is to organize and/or standardize what we use.

Where does this leave library catalogers, and libraries in general?  How should we focus our efforts?  Should we focus on traditional metadata creation, or should we attempt to update and adapt our processes and standards to a changing world?  Potential rewards, and possible troubles await either choice.  Can we forge a path that allows us to do both, or is that doomed to failure.

Just some things to think about….

Her solution is one that doesn’t fit the guidelines of her workplace.  It does, however, fit the guidelines of her work ethic : professionalism.

Read her post, and remember the instances where you, and others, have stepped beyond your working hours, your job classification, or some other guideline to solve a problem.  Why is this done?  Someone sees a need, determines a solution that fulfills the need in a way that best serves the principles of libraries and their own work ethic, and follows through.

Simple?   Not really.  It is easy to say “not my job” or “I’m simply following the rules”.  Far more challenging is determining when and how to step beyond what you are supposed to do, and do what is truly called for in the situation.  Especially since the person potentially exposes themself to criticism by doing so.

Circulating Zen sums it up well:  “I shouldn’t pawn it off on anyone else. It’s not professional.”

You may notice that I have followed her advice and have added the Add to Any service to this blog, visible at the bottom of every post (and checked to ensure it validates against XHTML and CSS standards, of course; a requirement I have for any add-on).

“Universities have authentication and authorization systems to identify who you are and what you can use; they also have office software or course management systems to support collaboration.    How many passwords do you use within your university system? How easy is it to collaborate with people outside your university? Yet within and without our universities, many faculty, students, and staff collaborate daily using Google’s suite of tools.  This trend will almost certainly grow once Google Wave is launched later this year.  With its impressive integration of services and novel method for identity management, Google Wave may become a tsunami that washes away the office software suite—and perhaps even the course management system.”

I am not so sure that Google Wave will be the tipping point, but it is certainly another step in this direction.  How many of us have stepped outside of the boundaries of the traditional tools we use for our work and schooling?  It is humbling to recognize how much time and effort can be saved through the proper application of a new software program, or an online service, or even tapping into social networking to gain insight (it is interesting that e-mail lists are considered standard, while Facebook, Twitter and blogging still have the “Library 2.0″ label stuck on them… they are all different forms of social networking, with their accompanying strengths and weaknesses).

Choudhury adds:

Too often we fail to examine trends beyond our own institutional context; we are reluctant to embrace risk taking when developing services or infrastructure.  The choices that universities and libraries make regarding infrastructure in the next few years will have profound implications for the future.

I would take it a step further, and suggest that we not only don’t look beyond our own context, we fail to grasp the possibilities that exist with new technology and new applications of existing technology.  When the environment surrounding our libraries changes, the environment within our libraries changes as well – whether we incorporate these changes or remain passive.

In other words:  We ignore tools such as Google Wave, Open Source, Open Access, Wikis, Blogs, Social Networking, social library catalog tools, and everything else at our own peril.  These tools have changed our libraries, are currently changing our libraries, and will continue to change our libraries as far into the future as we can see.  If we want to remain relevant (in other words:  if we want to survive), we need to pay attention.  Libraries as they have existed in the past will continue to play a role, but that role will be viewed more as an archive than a dynamic library.

We have lost a lot of ground, but we have the ability and the resources to do this, and it starts with each and every one of us.  How can we do our job better?  Smarter?  Faster?  What tools can we use?  How can others help?  The libraries that pay attention to those questions, and strive to answer them effectively, will be the ones to thrive.

I challenge you to, within the next week, find one new tool, idea, or resource that makes you better at your job.  Repeat, ad infinitum – from here it appears that it is Turtles all the way down.

He urges us to “Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero – ’seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow’”, and seek out “inclusion, relationship and commitment.”

He also stresses that “our success or failure will not be determined by new programs, plans, conferences, education or technology.”  I would counter that any new programs, plans, conferences, education and technology should serve to increase inclusion, relationship and commitment.  Otherwise, he is spot on, and I think we all need to have these brief rants, whether they occur in the blogosphere, around a restaurant table, along the walking path, or to ourselves while we shower.  They can help keep us focused on the tasks that lie ahead.

found via LISNews, who found it via Time

I especially like the pictures with an element of mystery… the attempt to gain some context of what is happening or where/when the photograph was taken.

found via Librarians’ Internet Index

The Library is Now Closed (a.k.a. Shuttered Library) is a blog created by an Ohio librarian named Mike (didn’t see a last name) which is compiling links to a vast amount of information and resources for libraries and supporters in Ohio. (thanks Jessamyn!)

Save Ohio Libraries is a blog detailing actions that people and libraries can take to, as the title suggests, save Ohio libraries.

A couple of additional links to Pdf articles that I missed yesterday, both from the “Balanced Budget Framework” page.  Note that neither of these have been properly named; save them to your hard drive and add “.pdf” to the end of the file name so that your computer will know how to open them (or you can open your Pdf reader and open the files from the program’s “File” menu):

• Balance Sheet by Line Item (detailed budget information, including the Governor, Senate, and House versions of  budget allocations)
• Highlighted State Strategies (a list of a dozen states, with their approaches towards balancing their respective budgets)