I can't see a problem with charging for access - although settling a
reasonable charge is perhaps more difficult.
You can get records for free (e.g. from the LoC) if you want (where they
exist of course), but the level of service tends to be poor (certainly
using the LoC Z39.50 from the UK is not a great experience).
You then have to decide whether it is cheaper to employ a cataloguer or
buy records in - I'd suggest that buying the records is more often
economic, but it will depend on the number of new titles acquired and
the level of cataloguing you are going to be happy with.
In the specific instance, why not just agree a charge for Z39.50 access
(or per record downloaded - but the former would be easier to
administer)?
Owen
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: e-Strategy and Information Resources
Imperial College London Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington
London SW7 2AZ
Tel: 020 7594 8829
Email: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: 28 March 2008 15:57
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Z39.50 question
There is sort of a 'tragedy of the commons' problem with cataloging
records that we haven't entirely figured out how to deal with. I have no
answer, but it troubles me.
Tim is exactly right that there's no marginal cost to sharing records,
and there is in fact community benefit. Everyone wins.
But indeed creating these records costs money. Somebody has got to pay
for it. If making them available free indeed makes people who _would_
have paid for it _stop_ paying for it---then there are fewer records to
share for free, at the ultimate limit no records available to share for
free, and everybody loses.
Current standard cataloging practices at many institutions does not
assuage my fears. Cataloging workflow often goes: 1) Check to see if a
record already exists in Worldcat. 2) If yes, use it, if not---put the
book on the shelf and check again in 3 months. 3) Repeat until it's a
year old, and then finally, reluctantly, do the cataloging yourself.
And worldcat record aren't even free! But they are, or at least are
judged to be, cheaper than the staff time to catalog it yourself. This
may be an error in judgement--but probably not---with the way cataloging
is currently done.
At least part of the solution has got to be in making cataloging more
efficient to reduce the cost per record. But there's still a
fundamental issue here, and I'm not sure what the solution is---other
than to say, well, gee, if WE were all library directors or funders,
WE'D keep cataloging despite freely shared records, to avoid the
'tragedy of the commons' situation. Which is nice to say, but doesn't
get us anywhere (and may not even be true; even library directors do not
always control their own purse strings; libraries are almost always part
of some other host institution).
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
> Does your administration feel that cutting the others off will spur
> them to start paying and thereby reduce your costs? "Economic
> feasability" doesn't enter into it otherwise, since the marginal cost
> of distributing the records is zero.
>
> It's seems like a variant on the Prisoner's Dilemma in which your
> non-cooperation never helps you, but it can be a messaging system to
> force others to cooperate.
>
> Tim
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Nicholas Bennyhoff
> <nicholasbennyhoff_at_mailman.lcls.org> wrote:
>
>> I have a question about Z39.50 record downloading.
>>
>> Our library system recently made the decision to close down Z39.50
access to our MARC records from our catalog. The primary reason being
that in our system, about half the libraries are a part of the ILS
system, and pay for our cataloging costs through the payment of their
consortium fees. There are other libraries in our system, which are not
part of the automated consortium, who would like access to our MARC
records via Z39.50, but as they do not pay the consortium fees, we felt
we needed to protect those records for the members of the ILS
consortium.
>>
>> Since shutting down the Z39.50 access, we've had inquiries from 2
libraries - 1 out-of-state, and 1 in our system (but not part of the
ILS)- about no longer being able to download our records.
>>
>> In theory, I'm absolutely in favor of allowing the access to our
records, but I understand that the system feels that it is not
economically feasible to share the records.
>>
>> I know this issue has been discussed before, but I'd be interested
in others' perspectives on the economic issues surrounding Z39.50
access.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Nicholas T. Bennyhoff
>> CMC Cataloger
>> Lewis and Clark Library System
>> 2765 Goshen Rd.
>> Edwardsville, IL 62025
>> (618)656-3216 ext.107
>> nicholasbennyhoff_at_lcls.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Sent via the WebMail system at mailman.lcls.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my library at
> http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Fri Mar 28 2008 - 11:27:09 EDT