Yes, I think a lot of this is an emotional issue, which revolves around
others getting something for free which I (or more accurately, my
library) has paid to create. This is hand-in-hand with the communal
desire to keep our current utility (e.g. OCLC, since all of the others,
at least in North America, have pretty much closed up shop) model from
tanking. It is our corporate nature to take the cheapest and easiest
route to get the services we need to run our libraries, which means that
we all wait some period for an acceptable record to appear before
throwing in the towel and doing original cataloging. In my library,
this period has been steadily shrinking due to administrative demands to
get materials onto the shelf in the least time possible. I doubt that
my admin is alone in those expectations.
Libraries in general are notoriously underfunded, and those at the
bottom of the copy cataloging ecosystem are just not funded at all for
membership (and the ensuing ILL exposure that membership brings) in bib
utilities. Nor do they have the staff, training, and admin support to
keep current with cataloging standards. Perhaps if we all remembered
that ultimately it is the general public that pays for AND benefits from
our cataloging efforts, it would make the Z39.50 model more palatable,
even at this late stage in its evolution. There are good reasons why
those of us who are funded for OCLC membership and for cataloging
activity in general need to share our cataloging efforts through both
OCLC and Z39.50/SRU/SRW. We are the libraries that can afford to keep
up with standards and practice in the field, have local and national
(through lists like this) colleagues to bounce ideas off of, and more
comprehensive collections to begin with. I see no reason why we should
horde our expertise or our cataloging. Rather, those of us who are in
institutions that can still do original cataloging should be grateful
that we are the recipients of the public's cataloging dollars and we
should give back to that public as best we can. Maybe what we should be
putting our energy into is ensuring that the profession continues to
support original cataloging in those larger institutions that are still
willing to share their records?
Charley
David Dorman wrote:
> At 09:42 AM 03/28/2008, Nicholas Bennyhoff 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.
> The only other economic impact I can think of is the added load on
> the system from non-members searching for records to download for
> copy cataloging. Is that even enough of a system resource factor to
> have been considered? If it isn't, I don't see the logic of the
> decision to deny Z39.50 downloads in your case.
>
> Why is sharing "not economically feasible?" From the facts as you
> present them, this does not seem to be an economic issue. Is it,
> perhaps, an emotional issue? I may be way off base here, but could
> it be that there is some resentment against the system members that
> don't contribute toward the use of the ILS, and that this led to the
> decision to deny them access to the MARC record?
>> 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.
>>
Received on Fri Mar 28 2008 - 12:21:43 EDT