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