De Lange, Day 3 (conclusion)

De Lange, Day 3

I was a bit late getting to Rice for Day 3, but luckily for me, the conference got kind of a late start anyway.

Daniel E. Atkins, Director of the Office of Cyberinfrastructure, National Science Foundation, gave a good overview of how NSF views data-storage and access needs of the near future at both the National and International level. But it was such a high level of discussion, so far removed from anything I’m immediately interested in, I do admit I almost nodded off more than once during this presentation. Probably university presidents and library directors paid more attention during this one than I did. Rice University has on its campus a Computational Sciences building, which I’m given to understand is not so much about computers as the applied use of heavy computing capability in the service of more specific scientific disciplines dealing with very large datasets requiring very heavy duty number-crunching. I have a hard time grasping how libraries, traditionally conceived and currently constituted, really have much of a direct role to play in the warehousing and archiving of these massive datasets, and the facilitation of later datamining of these datasets, teasing out connections in the datasets that may not be immediately obvious at first glance. I do think that Information Science professionals do have a role to play in facilitating access to such complex scientific and technical information, as it’s clear that our traditional library classification systems—LCSH, DDC22, LC Classification, etc, brilliant as they are, will be far to general in nature to be of much use in such specific, specialized fields. No, where the Information Science-trained Metadata experts will be needed is in the construction of new taxonomies and descriptive cataloging frameworks…beyond AACR2r2, beyond RDA, beyond Dublin Core…to describe these huge datasets and provide intellectual access to them via a well-constructed subject thesaurus. This is really a huge exercise in the basics of SLIS 5200, Information Organization, for those of you fellow UNT alums out there. As with that intro course, anyone tackling the project will have to pretend to forget MARC, forget Dewey, forget LCSH and go deeper to the theory behind all these systems that provide descriptive and subject-based intellectual access, and, in close consultation with experts in the field, create a new system of information classification, storage, and retrieval that is easy to use, puts all the relevant datasets together in some form of Union Catalog, organized by internationally recognized standards, etc. Despite the influence of the Cult of Google, a coherent, controlled vocabulary is still the best approach and will provide superior results to Google-style keyword ranking systems, which will leave the searcher S.O.L. for anything in a language other than English. Google-style searching should be available as an option, no objection there, but it’s not the only way to go about getting at the data scientists are wanting access to in a logical, coherent manner.

That’s what ought to be done, and how. But don’t ask me to do it…it’s far removed from the kinds of things I’m really keenly interested in. I’m sure there are plenty of other more techno-savvy Information Science practitioners willing to step up to the plate and deliver on a project like this one. I’m not one of them. And if those are the only kinds of conceivable library-like jobs that will be available in the future, then I guess I’ll be looking for a new line of work or resigning myself to the fate of being an underpaid, overeducated office drone.

Dr. Donald Kennedy’s talk on "How Science Enters the Mainstream" was very good, especially his discussion of National Security considerations impinging on Scientific research. Dr. Kennedy used the metaphor of Canals, and their various Locks, to describe the flow of information from the research being done by scientists, and the gateways that scientific information needs to pass through. Lock 1 was the apparatus of Science publication itself, the editing an peer review process for journals aimed at other science professionals more so than the lay public. Dr. Kennedy pointed out that there is a lot of value-added work done in this stage by conscientious editors, reviewers, etc. Lock number 2 highlighted the problem of Mainstream media filtering; the lack of good science writers in the mainstream media, and the elimination of science sections of newspapers and popular magazines out of cost considerations by a smaller and smaller number of media owners, similar to the way truly investigative reporting has been cut back, and the scaling back of foreign correspondents and foreign desks for international reporting. Dr. Kennedy advocated for readers and consumers to write letters and otherwise clamor for more scientific reporting of high caliber in mainstream media. This is, needless to say, quite an uphill battle. Because for all their talk of “simply responding to consumer demand”, Mainstream media is driven primarily by advertising, because it is likewise driven first and foremost by the pursuit of ever-increasing profit margins, which means pandering to the widest possible market, which often means “dumbing down”, UNLESS a particular niche market can be developed and enhanced…like for Science reporting. The most extended discussion was for Lock #3, the National Security considerations filter, with Richard Perle’s name popping up even as far back as the Reagan administration, raising a few eyebrows. Lock 4 concerned undue political influence on the tone and thrust of scientific findings, of such findings being made more politically correct, to pander to a specific political base, such as religious fundamentalists, or heavy industry, diluting the language used with deliberately vague obfuscations, evasions, equivocations, etc, not found in the original scientific findings.

Someone else during the Q&A mentioned the role of large corporations and agencies tying too many strings to their funding dollars, with the potential to skew research. Worthwhile question, especially considering the kind of research fronted by the American Petroleum Institute or the American Enterprise Institute. But that just scratches the surface. The real problem of communicating Scientific research clearly, comprehensibly and rationally to the mainstream public does indeed face formidable challenges as laid out by Dr. Kennedy’s theoretical model of a Canal Locks system—but it also more importantly faces active interference, obfuscation and suppression through noise and chaff of the odious, obnoxious, and obnoxiously well-paid Public Relations industry. The role of libraries, as I see it, is to collect works of brave investigators who keep a close eye on the PR industry and routinely expose these machinations to greater public scrutiny. Libraries should play an active role in promoting those forces that expose the PR industry for what it is, and the negative effects, vis a vis the Public Good, that their efforts entail on behalf of their well-heeled clients. A good example of what I’m talking about is the work of investigative journalists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, who are the leading figures of the Center for Media and Democracy, and whose books Toxic Sludge is Good For You and Trust Us, We’re Experts lay bare the origins and current activities of much of the Public Relations industry, spelling out specific tactics, modes of attack, etc. Many of the techniques mentioned are also frequently employed by government Public Affairs officers, both in uniform and in civilian service, sometimes due to the influence of Locks 3 and 4, other times for other specific agendas usually pertaining to the raw exercise of power that they desire to cover up or sugar-coat.

Lastly, we had Brewster Kahle, who gave a rousing talk on “Universal Access to Human Knowledge”; unlike many of the talks at this conference, it was aimed squarely at librarians; preaching to the choir, mostly, but even the choir needs a good rousing “amen, brother” kind of sermon every now and then, and this one (mostly) did not disappoint. The best take-away line from this presentation was a play-on-words : In academia, as well known, professors seeking tenure must “publish or perish”. For libraries and their sacred mission, Mr. Kahle asserted, they must either remain “Public, or Perish”. Amen to that, as I said. And I was quite excited by the Internet Archive project, both in America and in Alexandria, Egypt. Also interesting was preservation efforts of early software, especially old games (referred to as “abandonware” by gaming hobbyists, but still covered by the draconian DMCA, which Kahle railed against more than once)…I’m thinking of old 1980s text-based games like the sort put out by INFOCOM….Zork III, Enchanter, A Mind Forever Voyaging, etc. Also good is the effort to digitally archive old films from early in the 20^th century, because the film medium they were originally created on will not last forever, and they stand a much better chance of surviving in digitally preserved format.

No complaints from me about the digital preservation of such quality AV materials. But I’m sorry if I remain skeptical of the whole digitization of books thing. Call me old fashioned, call me a Luddite (others have, and worse). But I simply remain quite skeptical of the real feasibility of it. I’m unconvinced by the economics of it, for one. Kahle didn’t dwell on that topic for long, leaving me with the impression he was pulling a fast one (like several of the other speakers from day 1, I might add). The sample book he passed around was a children’s book from 1889. This means 1) out of copyright and therefore 2) public domain. It’s wonderful that such works are digitally preservable and re-issueable in attractive paperback format. It may very well give these works a second life they would otherwise not enjoy.

But also one of the points that really irritated me was the enthusiastic assertion about how easy it would be to “digitize the entire collection of the Library of Congress and have it available, for free, forever”.

Pardon me for raining on the parade, but this is a flawed assertion on a couple of points. For one, NO, what you would have is a SNAPSHOT of the Library of Congress, from a specific moment in time, in digitally preserved format. But for those followers of Ranganathan out there, recall that the Library is a growing organism. Books (and other materials) are added, books (and other materials) are weeded—the library is always in a process of re-transformation and growth, not unlike the way a snake sheds its skin, our bodies very cells grow, divide, die, ever renewing until we die and are reduced to our basic elements again. So in fact we do not have the Library of Congress always and forever, in a digitally preserved format, but a sliced and diced dead version, not unlike the National Library Medicine’s “The Visible Human Project”, come to think of it.

And moreover, it wouldn’t be “always and forever”, but rather, “until we can no longer sustain reliable power generation for such purposes”, which given the dire prognostications of post-Peak Oil implications, may not be as long as some people may think, maybe not even into the next generation. Considering such implications, boring old printed books printed on acid-free paper have a lot better chance of long-term preservation for passing on the cultural heritage.

And as much as I agree with Kahle’s overall enthusiasm for Public(-service) libraries [and I say Public Service Libraries to include both school and academic libraries under a broader rubric than classically conceived Public Libraries], I’m afraid this uplifting rhetoric is being used to sell a bill of goods that doesn’t measure up, in the end. (yeah, like THAT never happens…)

Although Gorman & Crawford’s Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness and Reality (1995) is a bit outdated now, Walt Crawford’s follow-up piece, Being Analog (1999) is still recent enough to be relevant, and upon being exposed to Kahle’s presentation, which concluded the De Lange conference, I am going to do something all too common among us bookish Luddites. I’m going to re-read it. And I’m going to press on reading Thomas Mann’s Oxford Guide to Library Research , the most recent edition of which I recently purchased for personal use. Because I’m not altogether convinced that many of the glaring shortcomings of mass-digitization of books coupled with print-on-demand technology laid out by Walt Crawford in Being Analog have been resolved as of 2007, not yet 10 years later. And as LC’s Thomas Mann would still point out, formidable, perhaps even insurmountable difficulties with Copyright restriction remain that simply will not go away no matter how much the digital dreamers may wish otherwise. I’m afraid I can’t accept Kahle’s entire spiel at face value. I’d want to see it vetted by the likes of Michael Gorman, Walt Crawford & Thomas Mann before I sign off on it. My suspicions are it wouldn’t pass muster with any of them, for the same reason(s) since before I went to Library school.

I appreciated all the heavy discussion over science, public policy, and raw storage issues of mass-datasets of scientific findings that took up the overwhelming majority of the time of the conference—largely thanks to Carl Sagan’s influence in my life and educational development. But much of that discussion is only tangentially related to our daily library work, or at least the kind of library work most of us humanistically-oriented librarians are interested in doing. It was definitely a conference more in tune with Information Science oriented people rather than Library Science practitioners. Information Science was the big winner at this conference, as its parameters as a legitimate discipline were laid out quite clearly…the tasks required by the scientific community are clear, you Information Science people out there—so hop to it. Meanwhile, we Library Science people will tend to the Books-centric side of the ‘Verse as we always have, if it’s all the same to you.

All in all, it was a good conference, and Aggie Librarian is very glad to have attended, even if it did mostly depress him, as predicted.