16# or OCLC is hilarious

look at the formatting of the newsletter, its awe inspiring.

OCLC has billion + item records in its database, so monolithic that nothing will touch it IMO.

Rick anderson -- just in case collection -- agree The library in 2.0 will not be distinguished by its collections size, but by the specialty and uniqueness of its special collections. This is the special part, because ALL of a general collection can be ILL'd or downloaded or taken out of storage. I think the BOORA guy said it how future libraries will be hindered by large collections, not helped.

stephens -- ill take a macbook pro.Librarian 2.0 controls technolust im so about this it is ultra necessary. We need to take a cold hard look at what the needs are of library users. Then look at what we are providing and what we can provide. I took a class recently that talked about implementing new features in this light "what is the business need for this service?" or opposite but more important "what is the business drawback if we dont do it?" If there is no google search on library.ucsc.edu, then will no one come to our site???

Oh jeez -- real questions which can help us move forward , very interesting. ( what im all about )

Dr. Wendy Schultz -- not sure about web 3.0 -- this is kinda of a rush to eat 2.0 up. so maybe sit back and institute rigourous processes about how and why we implement new features and ideas in our library.

without good planning we aren't going to get anywhere.

LIBRARY 2.0 to me?

it means a ton more people are on gmail, and knowledgable to new computer stuff. Also it means that shit breaks more.

deli.ci.ous -- plugin in Internet explorer is published by yahoo.com. Guess what? -- yahoo plugins break FIS/BANNER on a PC. Thanks web 2.0

-F