library 2.0

these articles were interesting, although it's true that some of it is just semantics. i think that kcls does a good job keeping up with our patrons needs, and i disagree with some of the authors who say that we should thin the collection, because people no longer need books as much. i agree that having books in digital and audio formats is extremely useful for many patrons, and should be available for as many books as possible. but i love books. i love libraries. i love reading books that many others have read before me, and then passing those books on to be used by the next person. and i know many people who feel the same way as i do. we need books in our collection, as well as a virtual collection.
i thought dr. wendy schultz's article was interesting, although it went in a few strange directions. is anybody really talking about library 3d? or library 4.0? these seem further in the future than we need to consider. if we're still arguing about library 2.0, who knows what the next form will look like?