> I wrote about an idea for an online service for small libraries when I got back
> from Kosovo.  It had the added (?) capability of social networking, where the
> social beings are libraries. It seemed to me that in many cases small libraries
> are more dependent on each other than large libraries are, and that in some
> communities (and some countries) it makes sense to allow the libraries to have a
> combined presence as well as separate catalogs. I didn't include
> circulation, in part because the libraries I had been viewing did not circulate
> books. But I still like the idea of a society of small libraries organized
> perhaps geographically as well as by collections.
I certainly agree that small Libraries tend to share more than large ones. A combined presence to me is the whole point of having a strong consortium. I applaud organisations like MassCat not only for banding together to save scant resources, but also because they have the courage to innovate. This is no small feat given the diversity of their membership. The historical pendulum swing between independence and heavy interaction fascinates me no end. There are certainly regional differences.