College and Research Libraries ONE HUNDRED PERSONS gathered at the Arlie Foundation outside Warrenton, Virginia, May 26-29, to discuss "Libraries and Automation." It appeared that per- haps half of the participants were librar- ians, the balance being engineers, systems men, computer people, and information and communications experts, but fre- quently during the three days the former half was indistinguishable from the lat- ter. All avowed as a common goal a more rapid and efficient delivery of in- formation to the man who needs it than is presently being accomplished. This is not to say that there was una- nimity on all counts; there was frequent difference of opinion expressed on how to attain the goal, on what steps in at- taining it should enjoy priority over what other steps, and the relative im- portance of the many areas of prospec- tive improvement in library services. At times these differences prompted spirited exchanges of views. There seemed to be a pervading impression among the non- librarians, however, that the most im- mediate need to improve library activ- ities was at the reader service level, whereas the librarians appeared more intent upon seeking methods of im- proving their internal processing of in- formation, feeling that thereby they would automatically be increasing their ability to serve their readers. There was also a certain standoff be- tween the two groups resulting from their general unknowledge of one anoth- er's respective mystiques. There was some tendency on the part of the librar- ians to say, "Tell me what you are ca- pable of doing, and I will tell you if we can apply it to libraries"; the computer people, on the other hand, were inclined to invite the librarians to tell them what in libraries needed doing so that they could determine whether or not a ma- chine could be applied to the problem. JULY 1963 The Arlie Conference There was also a basic dichotomy of language which rendered library par- lance awkward to the systems men and computer terminology self-conscious to the librarians. But these differences must not be over- stressed. All participants recognized the basic problem for what it was and spent their seventy-two hours pitting their minds solidly against it, and the result- ing interchange of ideas and concepts, suggestions and problems, witticisms and even limericks, was salutary and profit- able. Yet firm decisions and solutions, systems and programs, were neither sought nor arrived at. The purpose of the conference was exploratory-an ob- vious attempt to establish a rapport be- tween the two groups and give them op- portunity to find a common ground on which to · build future action programs. In accomplishing this goal, the confer- ence was eminently successful. Six formidable working papers on the "state-of-the-art" were distributed to con- ferees in advance of the conclave to fur- nish a basis for discussions. Librarians found them to be hard reading but well worth the effort; discussion indicated that they read them carefully. The pa- pers and their authors were: I. "Index Files: Their Loading and Or- ganization for Use," by R. L. Patrick and D. V. Black, computer consult- ants, Planning Research Corporation. 2. "Automated Storage and Access of Bibliographic Information for Librar- ies," by Richard Libby, director, Westchester Laboratories, Itek Corpo- ration. 3. "The Current Status of Graphic Stor- age Techniques: Their Potential Ap- plication to Library Mechanization," by Samuel Alexander, chief, Data Processing Division, National Bureau of Standards. 337 4. "Output Printing for Library Mech- anization," by David E. Sparks, Law- rence H. Berul, and David P. Waite, Information Dynamics Corporation. 5. "Library Communications," by J. W. Emling, and James R. Harris, Bell Telephone Laboratories, and Harvey J. McMains, American Telephone and Telegraph Company. 6. "The Automation of Library Sys- tems," by Gilbert W. King, vice presi- dent and director of research, Itek Corporation. Albert Warhheit, Mortimer Taube, Jo- seph Becker, Henry J. Dubester, Frank B. Rogers, and Foster Mohrhardt acted as discussion leaders, and Don R. Swan- son gave a stimulating talk describing the kind of console through which the future library user will find the informa- tion he needs. A conference such as this one, wherein no resolutions were passed nor action taken, defies brief summation. A few, however, of the hundreds of salient and provocative points made by conference participants can be reported here to give an indication of the range and depth of the discussion: 1. The ultimate library console which will bring the user and the computer store face-to-face will be more than a teaching machine allowing dialogue be- tween the two; it will also be a "learning ma{:hine" able to benefit from the search techniques and experiences of all previ- ous users. 2. Automation of libraries will up- grade the library profession by freeing librarians from much of the less-demand- ing repetitive activity they must now per- form and by enabling them to devote their full intellectual efforts to reader as- sistance. 3. A proper demand upon a librar- ian's attention is the need to formalize as many as possible of a library's activities; once they are formalized and codified, however, they lend themselves to ma- chine handling, and their accomplish- ment is not a professional task. 4. There is a danger of mechanizing . what we are doing rather than what so- ciety needs. 5. The computerization of the intel- lectual content of libraries will come later; prospects for the beginning of computer storage of the bibligraphical record exist now. 6. Careful systems planning is essen- tial before mechanization should be at- tempted; the compelling necessity of a national system of libraries should be recognized in planning for mechaniza- tion as it has been recognized in the planning of conventional libraries. 7. We cannot, however, await the day when all the problems of mechanization have been resolved before beginning to work, because such a day may never come. 8. Libraries should not compromise standards and accept a lower level of service just because machines can render it now. They should hold out for ma- chines that can do at least as well as is now being done without them. Innumerable other points, many of which were no doubt more significant than these, were also made during the three days. Interested persons may learn of them later if they wish, as the proceed- ings of the conference are to be pub- lished. The Arlie Conference was spon~ored jointly by the Council on Library Re- sources, Inc., the National Science Foun- dation, and the Library of Congress. It was useful to the profession in lending momentum to the library automation movement. This momentum must not now be lost.-D.K. • • 338 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES