571 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
571 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
How Special Librarians really use the Internet
|
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 11:02:22 CST
|
|
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
|
|
Subject: Special Librarians and the Internet
|
|
To: Ernest Perez <EPEREZ@UTDALLAS.BITNET>
|
|
|
|
From: "Sharyn Ladner, Business Librarian, University of Miami Richter Library"
|
|
<SLADNER@UMIAMI>
|
|
Subject: Special Librarians & the Internet
|
|
|
|
Last Summer we asked special librarians to participate in a
|
|
study of Internet use. We are posting this report of our
|
|
findings and implications for the library of the future on
|
|
the nine listservs and forums where we posted our original
|
|
request for participation (PACS-L, LIBREF-L, BUSLIB-L,
|
|
MEDLIB-L, LIBRES, LIBADMIN, PAMnet, MAPS-L and LAW-LIB). We
|
|
apologize in advance for this duplication but feel it's
|
|
important for our respondents to see what we found out.
|
|
|
|
We invite comments and encourage discussion of our findings
|
|
and interpretation.
|
|
|
|
*===========================================================
|
|
|
|
HOW SPECIAL LIBRARIANS REALLY USE THE INTERNET
|
|
|
|
by
|
|
|
|
Sharyn J. Ladner, Business Librarian
|
|
University of Miami (FL) Richter Library
|
|
(sladner@umiami.ir.miami.edu)
|
|
(sladner@uiami.bitnet)
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
Hope N. Tillman, Director of Libraries
|
|
Babson College
|
|
(tillman@babson.bitnet)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Summer of 1991 we asked special librarians with
|
|
access to BITNET and Internet to tell us how they use these
|
|
networks and what value they receive from this use. We hope
|
|
that our findings will serve as a basis for future research
|
|
in the use of electronic communications technology by
|
|
information professionals within the modern organization,
|
|
including the effects of these technologies on the role and
|
|
position of the information professional within the
|
|
organization.
|
|
|
|
RATIONALE
|
|
|
|
While there has been a veritable explosion of articles in
|
|
recent years on libraries and the Internet, there is a
|
|
singular lack of published research on how the Internet is
|
|
actually used by librarians. Articles on the Internet
|
|
typically discuss policy issues, describe network services
|
|
and guides, or discuss user support and promotion. Most
|
|
address in some way the idea that Internet (or BITNET, or
|
|
NREN) connectivity is the key to the library of the future,
|
|
but none examine actual use other than as case studies or
|
|
histories. This research, then, departs from the current
|
|
body of Internet literature by addressing these questions:
|
|
How is the Internet actually being used by practicing
|
|
librarians today? Are the network services and efficiencies
|
|
touted in the literature being used like their designers
|
|
intended?
|
|
|
|
Special librarians are a unique group to study because they
|
|
have a knowledge base in more than one discipline. Special
|
|
librarians are, for the most part, not only information
|
|
professionals holding advanced degrees in library or
|
|
information science, they are also specialists in one or
|
|
more subject areas, often with postgraduate training in
|
|
science, business or law. In addition, many special
|
|
librarians in science or technology fields work closely with
|
|
researchers who have been using Internet precursors such as
|
|
ARPANET, NSFNET and MILNET for years. Special librarians,
|
|
whether managers of industrial libraries or academic subject
|
|
specialists, are more often in public services positions,
|
|
and they may use the Internet differently from technical
|
|
services or systems librarians. The lack of research on
|
|
special librarians' use of interactive communications
|
|
technology leads us to ask the following questions: Do
|
|
special librarians differ from other types of librarians in
|
|
their use of the Internet? How do they interact with their
|
|
users who may already be using these inter-connected
|
|
networks for their own research activities? How does their
|
|
use of the Internet compare to their use of internal e-mail
|
|
systems within their own organizations?
|
|
|
|
In this report, we have limited our discussion to Internet
|
|
use and training and implications of this use for the
|
|
library of the future. For the sake of brevity, we have
|
|
included only a cursory description of our methodology.
|
|
|
|
PROCEDURE AND PARTICIPANTS
|
|
|
|
Participants were solicited through "Call for Participation"
|
|
announcements posted on nine computer conferences in July,
|
|
1991, and through a similar announcement in the August issue
|
|
of the _SpeciaList_, the monthly newsletter of the Special
|
|
Libraries Association. We sent a five-page electronic
|
|
questionnaire to the 113 librarians who responded to this
|
|
initial announcement; the 54 special librarians who
|
|
responded to this second survey are the focus of our study.
|
|
Our respondents were self-selected; we made no attempt at
|
|
probability sampling because our purpose was to find out the
|
|
ways in which special librarians use the Internet, not their
|
|
extent of use.
|
|
|
|
On the "Call for Participation" announcement we included a
|
|
brief questionnaire which potential respondents were asked
|
|
to return, either electronically, via fax or regular mail.
|
|
Here we asked respondents to list the computer conferences
|
|
to which they subscribed; the length of time they had been
|
|
using either BITNET or the Internet; and to "Briefly
|
|
describe (in a paragraph or less) your use (and/or your
|
|
patrons' use) of BITNET or the Internet." On the five-page
|
|
questionnaire we asked a series of structured questions to
|
|
find out how and for what purposes our respondents used
|
|
BITNET or Internet, so that we could flesh out the
|
|
information we had already received through the preliminary
|
|
survey. We asked them, for example, to rank five functions
|
|
or capabilities available on BITNET or Internet by extent of
|
|
use and to describe how they used these functions. We
|
|
also included a series of questions about training and costs
|
|
involved in accessing these systems.
|
|
|
|
To determine the importance and value of BITNET or Internet
|
|
to their work and for special librarians in general, we
|
|
asked a series of unstructured open-ended questions at the
|
|
end of the survey form. We asked respondents to describe,
|
|
based on their experience, "the major advantage or
|
|
opportunity for special librarians in using
|
|
BITNET/Internet"; "the major disadvantage or barrier for
|
|
special librarians in using BITNET/Internet"; their "most
|
|
interesting or memorable experience on BITNET or Internet";
|
|
and finally, we asked them for "any other comments [they'd]
|
|
like to make about the use of BITNET or Internet by special
|
|
librarians."
|
|
|
|
Sixty-five percent of our respondents are academic
|
|
librarians and 59% are in libraries with a subject emphasis
|
|
in science or technology. Other subjects represented are
|
|
law, medicine, maps and business. All five respondents
|
|
from for-profit corporations are in the computer industry.
|
|
Our participants represent a wide range of administrative
|
|
levels: 46% are in management (library directors, assistant
|
|
directors or branch or department heads) and 55% are subject
|
|
specialists. They work in libraries ranging in size from
|
|
the single person library to larger academic libraries with
|
|
several hundred employees. Librarians from the most
|
|
technologically advanced institutions to smaller colleges
|
|
and universities outside the urban, technological mainstream
|
|
are represented in our study. Although 93% of our
|
|
respondents are located in the United States, we also have
|
|
participants from Canada, Argentina and The Netherlands.
|
|
|
|
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING AND COST
|
|
|
|
Respondents' median experience level on the Internet (or
|
|
BITNET) is 24 months: 16 respondents have used these
|
|
networks for 12 months or less; 19 reported 13 to 36 months
|
|
experience; and an additional 19 have accessed the Internet
|
|
for more than three years. Respondents' use of Internet or
|
|
BITNET is heavier than their use of e-mail within their own
|
|
organization: 59% spend between two and five hours each
|
|
week in Internet-related activity, whereas only 33% spend
|
|
this amount of time on their internal e-mail systems (z =
|
|
2.81, p < .01). Seven respondents have never used electronic
|
|
mail within their parent organization.
|
|
|
|
We asked survey respondents whether the library/department
|
|
or the parent organization paid for access to the Internet,
|
|
and how this compared to the expense for internal e-mail.
|
|
Most respondents had the cost of both internal and external
|
|
e-mail paid for by their parent organizations. Slightly
|
|
more libraries had to pay for access to internal e-mail from
|
|
their departmental budgets than for Internet access, but
|
|
this difference was not significant. Approximately 20% of
|
|
the respondents did not know who paid for either internal or
|
|
external e-mail.
|
|
|
|
As might be expected, the longer someone has searched the
|
|
Internet, the more they were responsible for their own
|
|
instruction. We asked respondents to check as many of the
|
|
types of training they had received as applicable. 65% of
|
|
the respondents taught themselves. 59% learned informally
|
|
from a colleague. Formal training from a single one-hour
|
|
class to more structured learning was available to 39%. The
|
|
fact that none of them learned in library school could
|
|
easily be a function of when the respondents attended
|
|
library school, but we did not ask that question. Two other
|
|
categories were cited by several respondents: learning by
|
|
asking questions on the Internet itself and use of
|
|
documentation provided by the local computer center
|
|
operation. Descriptive responses showed some respondents
|
|
learning with a minimum of hand holding; these did not see
|
|
the need for instruction offered by their local computer
|
|
centers.
|
|
|
|
In answer to our question of what training should be
|
|
provided for new users and who should provide the training,
|
|
respondents identified very specific knowledge that should
|
|
be imparted in the training. The need for coverage of both
|
|
theory and basic training techniques were frequently
|
|
mentioned. Training should cover both history and philosophy
|
|
of the Internet along with what it is, what's out there, and
|
|
how it works. Useful training sessions would include
|
|
training in FTP, telnet, mail, Netnews, addressing
|
|
algorithms, proper etiquette, security rules to safeguard
|
|
computers/data, how to connect to the Internet, how to keep
|
|
up with Internet developments and changing resources, how to
|
|
manage the flow of information, and how this differs from
|
|
the other (for pay) online services. A second area of
|
|
training addressed librarians' needs: how the Net can be
|
|
helpful to librarians, its potential for libraries, how to
|
|
identify information nodes to locate and access forums and
|
|
publishers of relevance to one's interests, how to make the
|
|
best use of increased connectivity to streamline library
|
|
procedures, and how to persuade important vendors to provide
|
|
e-mail access or EDI.
|
|
|
|
While a few respondents questioned the need for any
|
|
instruction, most respondents assigned responsibility for
|
|
training to multiple bases: parent organizations (by both
|
|
libraries and computer centers), professional associations
|
|
and library schools. Instructional tools cited were print
|
|
documentation, video, and demo disks. There was a recurrent
|
|
theme of the need for easy-to-use packaged information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOW THE INTERNET IS USED
|
|
|
|
We organized responses to the open-ended question, "Briefly
|
|
describe your use of BITNET or the Internet," into six
|
|
umbrella categories: work-related communication and
|
|
electronic mail, computer conferences and electronic
|
|
journals, remote database searching, file transfer and data
|
|
exchange, research and publication, and personal
|
|
communication and leisure activities. Table 1 shows the
|
|
percent of use by category:
|
|
|
|
Table 1
|
|
|
|
USE OF BITNET/INTERNET BY SPECIAL LIBRARIANS
|
|
|
|
Use* Percent
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Work-related communication, e-mail 93%
|
|
|
|
Electronic forums, BBS, listservs 61%
|
|
|
|
Searching remote databases (telnet) 39%
|
|
|
|
File transfer (FTP), data exchange 37%
|
|
|
|
Research and publication 22%
|
|
|
|
Personal communication, leisure activities 11%
|
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
*Multiple responses possible; percents do not total
|
|
100.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except for file transfer activities, there are no
|
|
differences in use of these Internet functions by type of
|
|
library (academic vs. other types), subject emphasis (sci-
|
|
tech vs. other subjects), or experience level (length of
|
|
time on the Internet).
|
|
|
|
Electronic mail and computer forums:
|
|
|
|
The findings displayed in Table 1 are striking and
|
|
unequivocal: the principal use of the Internet by the
|
|
special librarians in our study is for electronic mail. The
|
|
most common reason our respondents use the Internet is to
|
|
communicate with colleagues and friends, and the value of
|
|
this activity was stressed over and over again. Many
|
|
respondents reported that access to the Internet reduces
|
|
geographical distance and feelings of isolation from
|
|
colleagues and instills a sense of collegiality and
|
|
connectedness with other library professionals. Others
|
|
mentioned the speed of communication -- saving time,
|
|
reducing telephone tag, eliminating phone calls. Other
|
|
reasons for use of e-mail on the Internet mentioned by
|
|
respondents include getting quick copyright permission,
|
|
providing and receiving electronic reference and technical
|
|
assistance, requesting and providing ILLs, requesting
|
|
library materials, missing issues, duplicate exchanges,
|
|
identifying document sources, submitting applications for
|
|
employment, and facilitating professional association
|
|
business and committee work.
|
|
|
|
Special librarians are active participants in computer
|
|
discussion groups. They do not limit themselves to library-
|
|
related lists but monitor and join relevant sci-tech and
|
|
business discussions as well: our 54 respondents belong to
|
|
68 different computer discussion groups. Respondents
|
|
mentioned the following benefits: (1) a focussed forum for
|
|
topics of interest to a specific audience; (2) an excellent
|
|
and swift communications vehicle where questions can be
|
|
raised and answers provided to all the participants, rumors
|
|
can be defused, and reasons for actions can be explained
|
|
once and transmitted easily to the entire audience; and (3)
|
|
reduced telecommunication costs because it costs the same to
|
|
send a message to one person as to send it to a large group.
|
|
|
|
Remote database searching:
|
|
|
|
Thirty-nine percent of our respondents reported that they
|
|
access remote computer systems on the Internet. Of these,
|
|
80% mentioned that they search other library catalogs. They
|
|
search OPACs for a variety of traditional task-related
|
|
reasons: to check availability status or identify ownership
|
|
before requesting an interlibrary loan, for collection
|
|
development and acquisitions work, and for reference.
|
|
Others mentioned that they search remote catalogs
|
|
evaluatively, to test other search interfaces or to see what
|
|
other libraries are doing with their automated systems.
|
|
|
|
Several respondents made reference to specific library
|
|
systems with expanded search capabilities beyond access to
|
|
the library's OPAC, such as the University of California's
|
|
MELVYL and the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries CARL
|
|
system. Others mentioned that they use the Internet to
|
|
access non-library bibliographic services such as RLIN,
|
|
OCLC's EPIC, Medline, and Dialog.
|
|
|
|
Substantially fewer special librarians search non-
|
|
bibliographic databases on the Internet compared to library
|
|
catalogs and other bibliographic systems. Astronomy
|
|
librarians are more involved in their use of the Internet
|
|
for non-bibliographic information than librarians in other
|
|
disciplines, which is no doubt due to the vital role that
|
|
the Internet plays in the astronomy research community.
|
|
|
|
File transfer and data exchange:
|
|
|
|
Thirty-seven percent of our respondents use the Internet to
|
|
transfer files, about the same proportion that log into
|
|
remote databases. Unlike electronic mail and remote
|
|
database searching, there are differences in the use of file
|
|
transfer utilities by network experience level: 50% of the
|
|
experienced users (defined as respondents who have used
|
|
BITNET or Internet for more than two years) send or retrieve
|
|
files over the Internet, compared to only 25% of their less
|
|
experienced colleagues (z = -1.96, p = .05). More sci-tech
|
|
librarians also use file transfer utilities than do special
|
|
librarians in other disciplines, but these differences are
|
|
not significant (z = 1.32).
|
|
|
|
Like remote databases, respondents for the most part
|
|
consider file transfer functions secondary to their use of
|
|
electronic mail. They often discuss file transfer with
|
|
remote login, indicating that there may be a conceptual
|
|
blurring of these two Internet functions. Special
|
|
librarians on the Internet use FTP to obtain files resident
|
|
on remote systems; others request files through BITNET
|
|
listservs. For example, several reported that they download
|
|
computer-related information from remote servers, such as
|
|
the WAIS application from Thinking Machines, listserv-
|
|
specific reports such as PACS-L Review articles, computer
|
|
science technical reports, and shareware. Many retrieve
|
|
Internet guides such as the Barron and St. George
|
|
directories, Kovacs' directory of computer forums, and
|
|
Strangelove's directory of E-journals. Several retrieve
|
|
regulatory reports and government documents, technical
|
|
reports, or receive alert services from Dialog, SRI
|
|
documents, and newsletters.
|
|
|
|
Special librarians also send files on the Internet backbone.
|
|
Examples include search results to remote users,
|
|
acquisitions lists, and Project Gutenberg files. Astronomy
|
|
librarians, again, are particularly active in file transfer
|
|
activities.
|
|
|
|
Research and publication on the Internet:
|
|
|
|
Twenty-two percent of our respondents described uses of the
|
|
Internet related to research and publication. Our
|
|
respondents use the Internet in two ways: as researchers
|
|
collaborating with colleagues at other institutions and
|
|
connecting with journal editors and book publishers, and as
|
|
editors of newsletters or journals who are themselves
|
|
responsible for communicating with contributors. Their
|
|
experiences demonstrate how the Internet enhances the
|
|
dissemination of information to members of the library
|
|
science community, by providing access to people through
|
|
electronic mail and access to electronic information through
|
|
file transfer and remote login.
|
|
|
|
The value of communication:
|
|
|
|
We asked study participants to describe, based on their own
|
|
experience, the "major advantage or opportunity" for special
|
|
librarians in using the Internet. All 50 respondents who
|
|
replied to this question mentioned some aspect of electronic
|
|
communication in their responses. In other words, these
|
|
special librarians who themselves are active Internet users
|
|
consider electronic mail to be the major reason why special
|
|
librarians should use the Internet, because it provides a
|
|
convenient, timely, nondisruptive, and inexpensive mechanism
|
|
for communication with their colleagues throughout the
|
|
world.
|
|
|
|
Over and over respondents mentioned the same things: "Truly
|
|
breaks down the walls (physical, psychological, economic) to
|
|
communication," "Contact with other special librarians in
|
|
your area without having to travel...," "Ease of
|
|
communication when you want it," "...communication of ideas
|
|
and discussions will take place via e-mail that will never
|
|
see the light elsewhere...," "To communicate with colleagues
|
|
on topics of mutual interest," "...a way of sharing in
|
|
real-time, information & experience...," "The ability to
|
|
share information with colleagues throughout the world in a
|
|
timely fashion," "Instantaneous world-wide communication
|
|
with colleagues for information-gathering and idea-sharing,"
|
|
"...forming a greater library community based on interest
|
|
rather than on geography...," "...forging new and unique
|
|
work relationships with colleagues ... geographically close
|
|
or far...," "...rapid communication with colleagues who can
|
|
provide a wealth of experience...," "The ability to
|
|
communicate with others in similar situations...," "To
|
|
interact all over US and world -- time differences are
|
|
eliminated and your colleague is always 'home',"
|
|
"...communication and sharing with colleagues on both
|
|
specific problems/questions and general issues...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMPLICATIONS OF OUR FINDINGS
|
|
|
|
The use of the Internet for communication by the special
|
|
librarians in our study parallels what happened with early
|
|
users of ARPANET. ARPANET was established by the Department
|
|
of Defense as a way for computer scientists and other
|
|
researchers with defense contracts to share expensive
|
|
resources. Electronic mail was added as an afterthought,
|
|
and was considered by some of the DOD systems people to be
|
|
unnecessary -- peripheral to the research functions for
|
|
which the network was designed. Contrary to expectations,
|
|
however, electronic mail became the most popular feature of
|
|
the network because it provided a way for researchers to
|
|
talk to each other -- to exchange ideas and discuss
|
|
problems. Like the computer scientists and other early
|
|
users of ARPANET, the librarians in our study also use the
|
|
Internet to talk to each other and to their patrons --
|
|
fielding inquiries, finding answers, identifying resources,
|
|
solving problems, i.e., they use the Internet primarily for
|
|
communicating, not for building or even accessing
|
|
collections.
|
|
|
|
In one respect, librarians who use the Internet are no
|
|
different from any other user group -- they use it to
|
|
communicate with each other as well as to obtain "hard data"
|
|
(i.e., tap into resources). But librarians can do something
|
|
else as well as a result of their training and knowledge of
|
|
information processes and information organization -- they
|
|
can go beyond using the Internet as a resource and use their
|
|
skills to help make it less chaotic.
|
|
|
|
To understand why the electronic mail function is so
|
|
important, it may help to conceptualize the Internet as a
|
|
giant parallel processing computer. People use the Internet
|
|
to communicate -- to talk to each other, pose questions and
|
|
provide answers. Information between and among people flows
|
|
in parallel, in real time. But this is not the only use:
|
|
there is something else going on here, in that resources are
|
|
available too, also in parallel. Published articles about
|
|
the Internet emphasize these resources (library catalogs,
|
|
remote databases full of esoteric data) and the physical
|
|
strands (optical fibers and satellites) that tie it all
|
|
together. These strands, however, are not just the physical
|
|
connections -- these strands are also the human connections,
|
|
the communications between individuals and among groups of
|
|
people. People are still the most efficient parallel
|
|
processing information filters there are.
|
|
|
|
The important thing is that you don't have to talk to one
|
|
person at a time. People place requests for information
|
|
across a universe of potential responders, instead of
|
|
dealing with one responder at a time. As in computer
|
|
processing, this is a vastly more efficient way of
|
|
processing information. Potential responders screen the
|
|
requests for information to see if they are applicable to
|
|
their interests or their abilities to respond. Thus people
|
|
who normally would not be considered in the loop to solve a
|
|
particular problem find themselves in the position of
|
|
providing valuable information to each other. The emerging
|
|
global community created by these systems is more democratic
|
|
and less hierarchical than conventional systems.
|
|
|
|
The people who communicate on the Internet provide meaning
|
|
and understanding -- they create a synergy that's not
|
|
possible with human-machine linkages alone. It's the human-
|
|
human linkages that are important because this technology-
|
|
enhanced interaction is what will have the biggest impact
|
|
on our organizations of the future. Because it's people
|
|
that ask questions and people that answer questions and
|
|
people that discuss issues -- and it's people that develop
|
|
files ready to be retrieved from central depositories, and
|
|
not just central depositories, but locations that can exist
|
|
anywhere -- it doesn't matter if the data you need is
|
|
located centrally in the bowels of the National Library of
|
|
Medicine or exists on the VAX in Podunk U -- the
|
|
interconnectedness of the Internet makes location
|
|
irrelevant. In the same way, it doesn't matter if you are a
|
|
special librarian located in a university on the mainland
|
|
and need to talk to an astronomer on a mountaintop in Oahu
|
|
-- you can do this practically instantaneously via the
|
|
Internet. Further, it doesn't matter if that astronomer is
|
|
in the middle of complicated calculations or on a conference
|
|
call to The Netherlands, she will get your message at her
|
|
convenience, without her thought processes being
|
|
interrupted.
|
|
|
|
Electronic mail on the Internet provides a mechanism for
|
|
community. To create AI navigators, online directories, and
|
|
other electronic guides to the network without human
|
|
interaction removes community from scholarship. The
|
|
"scholar's workstation" has been proposed as the ideal
|
|
toward which we should strive. But perhaps we ought to
|
|
rethink this "ideal": in an isolated, machine-based network
|
|
of information sources, do we run the risk that knowledge
|
|
will be created in isolation? Will scholars toil at their
|
|
computer workstations, tapping into vast and varied
|
|
databases of information, guided by artificial intelligence
|
|
front-end gateways to the next bit (or byte) of data,
|
|
thereby eliminating communication with others in their
|
|
intellectual pursuit?
|
|
|
|
The participants in our study tell us something that we may
|
|
have forgotten in our infatuation with the new forms of
|
|
information made available through the Internet. And that
|
|
is their need for community. To be sure, our respondents
|
|
use the Internet to obtain information not available in any
|
|
other format, to access databases and OPACs that provide new
|
|
efficiencies in their work, new ways of working. But their
|
|
primary use is for communication. Special librarians tend
|
|
to be isolated in the workplace -- the only one in their
|
|
subject specialty (in the case of academe), or the only
|
|
librarian in their organization (in the case of a corporate
|
|
library). Time and time again our respondents expressed
|
|
this need to talk to someone -- to learn what is going on in
|
|
their profession, to bounce ideas off others, to obtain
|
|
information from people, not machines.
|
|
|
|
There are tremendous implications from the Internet
|
|
technology in community formation -- the Internet may indeed
|
|
provide a way to increase community among scholars,
|
|
including librarians. The danger we face at this juncture
|
|
in time, as we attach library resources to the Internet, is
|
|
to focus all of our energies on the machine-based resources
|
|
at the expense of our human-based resources, i.e.,
|
|
ourselves. Do we really want solely to create an
|
|
objective, distant, remote, value-free "knowbot" to direct
|
|
users to library-resident, machine-readable resources
|
|
residing on the Internet? We see the need at the same time
|
|
to create a human interface -- a community of knowledge
|
|
navigators serving to connect people who can interact in
|
|
their pursuit of truth.
|
|
|
|
==== <g INTERNET> 13 links in glossary topic
|