Why would p2p be difficult? Can someone who knows p2p software postulate
a way to do this? I assume we'd have to use a non-MARC record format,
but that shouldn't be a problem (would MARCXML be usable?).
kc
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>> OCLC does have a program for notifying a library if a record they've
>> used has been "upgraded" by someone.
> We need this notification to go to our software, which will
> automatically take action by upgrading and overlaying the new
> information. We need this to be affordable (do you have to pay OCLC to
> per record to do this? If so, that's probably why nobody is interested
> in doing this). We need software that can do this in an automated way.
> We need procedures that let us do this with confidence that it won't
> mess up our data.
>
> It might be possible to distribute these sorts of updates in a 'peer to
> peer' way without going through a 'central clearinghouse' as Ted
> wonders. It probably is possible. But it's definitely more technically
> challening than the 'central clearinghouse' way. And we can't even
> accomplish the central clearinghouse way! I'd focus on that first,
> myself. [Of course, there does not need to be just _one_ central
> clearinghouse. There can be many, and your software can/should be able
> to talk to all of them. But that's still different than a true
> peer-to-peer environment that Ted wonders about].
>
> Jonathan
>
>> I wonder how possible it would be
>> to dynamically upgrade different copies of a record without going
>> through a central "clearinghouse" like OCLC. But then I'm not a software
>> expert, so maybe it's more possible than I think.
>>
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>> (205)934-2461
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:33 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Rules--was Calhoun at FoBC
>>
>> Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>>
>>> Why should I make the record improvements Jonathan mentioned, if it's
>>> just out of the goodness of my heart?
>>>
>>>
>> I thought you said you were _already_ making them, for the presumed use
>> of your own users? If you are already doing that anyway, would you
>> really mind sharing it with others with no additional gain except the
>> benefit of the library community (and the fact that you will mutually
>> benefit from this strengthened community, in a sort of generalized
>> reciprocity).
>>
>> The problem I see is that there are all these record improvemetns many
>> people are ALREADY making, but in fact many people need to make again
>> and again, duplicating effort. So from that perspective, there is no
>> question "why would I do that work", that work is already being done, so
>> apparently you already have good enough reason to do it--but the product
>> of that work is not being shared very effectively.
>>
>> But, there is indeed a 'tragedy of the commons' issue there. Right now,
>> many people are already making those record improvements---because they
>> believe they have to, if they want to get those improvements. If such a
>> technical infrastructure allowing better sharing existed, would all
>> those institutions stop making the improvements, hoping that 'somebody
>> else' would, and they could just take advantage of them for cheap? If
>> everyone is waiting for 'somebody else', then nobody's doing anything,
>> indeed.
>>
>> Now, the fact of the matter is, there is a whole lot of duplication of
>> effort right now. So from an objective point of view, it should be
>> possible to 'cooperatively' share more than we are, reduce duplication
>> of effort, and thereby get better data _without increasing person hours
>> spent_. Should be possible, but socially politically, how do you pull
>> this off without a 'tragedy of the commons'? Maybe that's the situation
>> we're already in, maybe that's why our infrastrucutre of cooperation is
>> what it is, and we have so much duplication of effort. I don't know.
>> It's a political/social challenge as well as a technical to improve our
>> infrastructure of cooperation. But I think it's something we've got to
>> pull off somehow, to maintain effectiveness.
>>
>> It is indeed a question of leadership within cataloging departments and
>> within libraries.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>> But as I believe Bob Wolven suggested in his summary, it's hard to see
>>> how that can be remedied if management wants cataloging to be cheap.
>>> Calhoun and others are, to some extent, asking us to "have faith" that
>>> we'll be able to serve our users as well, or better, with less money
>>>
>> and
>>
>>> staffing.
>>>
>>> Ted Gemberling
>>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>>> (205)934-2461
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Cynthia Williamson
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:48 PM
>>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone - I will definitely go and listen to Rick Lugg's intro, I
>>> completely agree that we need to let go of the idea of the perfect bib
>>> record. It comes down to "description vs. access". I don't know where
>>>
>> I
>>
>>> first heard that phrase (may well have been Karen Calhoun herself) but
>>> it hits the right note for me. As someone who lives in both worlds -
>>> Cataloguing and Information Services, I see both sides of this coin.
>>>
>> We
>>
>>> really do have to focus on access not description. I'd rather have
>>> material on the shelf quickly with a short, fairly accurate record
>>>
>> than
>>
>>> wait for someone to catalogue it perfectly. Our library uses a vendor
>>> and is part of a consortium and I often bemoan the lack of control I
>>> have over the catalogue; my complaints usually involve turnaround time
>>>
>> -
>>
>>> I want the materials I select on the shelf as quickly as possible.
>>>
>> How
>>
>>> can I tell instructors who are accustomed to getting a book purchased
>>> from Amazon in 24 hours that they'll have to wait for over a month for
>>> something they want for their students to appear on the library
>>> shelves???? However the next generation catalogue finally looks and
>>> operates, I know my patrons will judge it by how easy it is to use not
>>> by how accurately we follow cataloguing rules.
>>>
>>> Cynthia Williamson
>>> Collection Management Librarian
>>> Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology
>>> Hamilton, ON
>>> L8N 3T2
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:23 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Calhoun at FoBC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Erin Leach wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem, as you point out, is that the records you might buy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> aren't> as "good" as the work you might produce. I think that
>>>> Calhoun would
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> argue that users want access to the information, even if the records
>>>>> conveying that information isn't perfect. Calhoun might say that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> users> don't care as much about subject access as they do about
>>>> whether or not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> the URL is in the record or if the record can be found at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Just back from the FoBC:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this was the gist of her message, but also of the messages of
>>>> manyother speakers as well. If you didn't listen to the webcast
>>>> live, do
>>>> listen to Rick Lugg's intro when it gets up online. He really set the
>>>> tone for the meeting, and his point was that in order to function in
>>>> this fast-moving world we are going to have to give up on the idea
>>>> thatwe are creating "perfect" bib records. Many speakers made the
>>>> point that
>>>> we should accept copy from just about anywhere we can find it, and
>>>> onlyfix anything that we think greatly hinders access. They also
>>>> said that
>>>> we should be spending much less time on regularly published works and
>>>> more time on the unique items in our collections. As to Jonathan's
>>>> pointabout sharing, there were a few "digs" at publishers and at
>>>> OCLC for
>>>> hindering sharing. This is an underlying issue that has not been
>>>> broughtto the surface and I wonder when it will finally "hit the
>>>> fan." We
>>>> obviously can't rely on publisher data is a starting point for copy
>>>> cataloging if we can't then share versions of that record with other
>>>> libraries.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to get my full notes up online shortly, but I really do
>>>> recommend the webcasts when they appear, which should be in a few
>>>> days.Especially the comments and questions, which were often more
>>>> pointedthan the prepared speeches.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>>>> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
>>>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>>>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
>>> only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader
>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent
>>>
>> responsible
>>
>>> to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>>> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>>
>> communication
>>
>>> is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please
>>> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
>>> the original message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>> The Sheridan Libraries
>> Johns Hopkins University
>> 410.516.8886
>> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 10:27:50 EDT