Dear All,

I fully agree with Prof. Singh that content is of prime importance and we should revitilise our domain by re-appraising the whole curricula.

Still the need remains to top it up with a new name suitable with the new areas that are coming up everyday into our field.

Even if it is said "what's in a name" but still it remains the most important identity tag for visualising a field at the first encounter, its like an one-like indicative abstract for a field of discipline. So we should choose judiciously and I opt for "Information Studies" like the West or "Information & Knowledge Studies" with the librarians named as Information or "Knowledge Officer", lower level library workers as "Knowledge Worker"

Thanks to Prof. Mangla for raising this issue.

As I see from the list appended to the CDC Report, there have been many discussions on the syllabus front, the key players being IATLIS and LIS Dept.s of different universities. I request every one to upload (or if already uploaded, give a link to) those documents to this forum.

Then by some stipulated time, we would go through them, summarize, add/modify upon, and a new syllabus with past knowledge and current trends will emerge.

For nomenclature, without going into details, let us just name names & where it is used: as for eg,

Information Studies- University of Southhampton ( if possible include their syllabus as an attachment)

Thank you all.

Susmita Chakraborty

Bengal Engineering and Science University (http://www.becs.ac.in), West Bengal, India