[PADG:289] RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Editorial: The Electronic Library

["Frost, Gary" <gary-frost@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re: points in the Times/Google editorial

I saw in a U Michigan statement that the Google project will scan in a
few years what would otherwise take 1,600 years. I imagine this is a
comparison with the routine reformatting rate and not a comparison of
safe versus hazardous handling.

I think the Google virtual library is a good development for
preservation because it has a good agenda of using books. It only
confirms the continuing role of the print collections.  Now all we need
is the corollary assurance of the pre-eminent status of books, and
especially their pre-eminent role as leaf masters, within the churn of
reading behaviors.

Gary   

Gary Frost
Conservator
University of Iowa Libraries
100 Main Library
Iowa City, IA, 52242
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-padg@xxxxxxx [mailto:owner-padg@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Cybulski, Walter (NIH/NLM)
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 6:15 AM
To: 'padg@xxxxxxx'
Subject: [PADG:287] RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Editorial: The
Electronic Library 

The following shockingly inspiring statements from the NYT piece speak
volumes:

"It will also provide information for finding the nearest copy of the
real
physical book."

"It is an illusion to think that the digital versions of scanned books
can
replace the books themselves."

"...it will be critical to remember that printed books are a stable
medium,
one that has persisted for hundreds of years."

"The Google project will enhance the usefulness of the books it
encompasses,
but it in no way will render them obsolete."

"...a demonstration of the immensity - and the immense cultural value -
of
works in the public domain..."

Someone should microfilm this article.  Either a librarian wrote it or a
librarian slipped something into the gingerbread latte of the person who
did.

Best wishes & holiday good cheer.

Walter Cybulski