Actually, we need to be getting our ILSs to perform this activity as a
Web service. For this, we need XML all around. Many of us have waited
for the day when we wouldn't need to update our local record and then
turn around and enhance the "master" record in OCLC. Rather, we would
update just the master record and let the master record itself display
locally, merged with additional local notes, call numbers, subject
headings, and so on from the local system. I've always imagined this
for the CONSER database, which consists of records that are changing
constantly (title, frequency, publisher, enumeration/chronology
changes), but for which most of us have just a snapshot of the CONSER
record from say ten years earlier. If we could store just the local
stuff in the ILS and use Web services to grab the master bib record for
display, we might even be able to think of actually displaying 510s,
which are totally useless when they are ten years out of date. If we
could find a way to solve the indexing issues that using remote data
would entail, I think that this could be feasible in the near future.
Why is WorldCat Local not doing this?
Charley
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
--
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Charley Pennell mailto:cpennell_at_unity.ncsu.edu
Principal Cataloger for Metadata voice: (919)515-2743
Metadata and Cataloging Department fax: (919)515-7292
NCSU Libraries, Box 7111
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
Adjunct Librarian, Memorial University of Newfoundland
World Wide Web: http://www.ibiblio.org/hillwilliam/chuckhome.html
__________________________________ __________________________________
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 11:07:11 EDT