At 01:09 PM 03/28/2008, Nicholas Bennyhoff wrote:
>David,
>
>The primary concerns, I think, are that if the system members who
>are not paying to be a part of the consortium can get our MARC
>records for free, that they will have no incentive to join, and
>those who do pay will 1. feel it's unfair for those who don't pay to
>benefit from work they are paying for and 2.that it's not necessary
>to remain in the consortium, because they could still get the
>records without paying the consortial fees (which are considerable).
Nicholas,
I hesitate to respond because there have been so many posts
indicating why it is a good practice to share bibliographic
records--but I will because I just don't think your assumptions about
what motivates your non-consotium ILS using members makes sense on
the face of it.
Your statement that if they can get MARC records from the shared ILS
they will "have no incentive to join" comes across as a pretty
damning indictment of the value of joining your shared ILS. I know
you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it reads. I hope you
would be the first to acknowledge that there are many other valuable
reasons for being a part of a shared ILS.
What you don't say, but which I am guessing is a factor, is that the
"substantial fees" that your users pay for the shared ILS also
entitles them to access to OCLC MARC records, and that the member
libraries that are not users of the shared ILS (and thus don't pay
the substantial fees) don't have this access. Otherwise, you point
about fairness and lack of incentives makes no sense.
If my guess is right about OCLC being a factor, then the real issue
is the desire of the OCLC users in your consortium to spread out the
costs of OCLC access. If I have guessed wrong, then I really don't
understand what all the fuss is about.
David
>----------------------------------------------
>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
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: David Dorman <dorman_at_indexdata.com>
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:04:22 -0400
>
> >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.
> >
> >Is there a concern that libraries that use the ILS system would cease
> >to use it if they could get access to MARC records even if they
> >didn't use the ILS? Is there a concern that libraries that might
> >consider using the ILS would not do so as long as they could get
> >access to its MARC records? Do members think they can get income
> >from charging for Z39.50 downloads?
> >
> >Since there are many other sources of free MARC records, it does not
> >seem likely that any of these questions could be answered in the
> affirmative.
> >
> >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?
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >>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
> >
> >David Dorman
> >US Marketing Manager, Index Data
> >52 Whitman Ave.
> >West Hartford, Connecticut 06107
> >dorman_at_indexdata.com
> >860-389-1568 or toll free 866-489-1568
> >fax: 860-561-5613
> >
> >INDEX DATA Means Business
> >for Open Source and Open Standards
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >www.indexdata.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Sent via the WebMail system at mailman.lcls.org
David Dorman
US Marketing Manager, Index Data
52 Whitman Ave.
West Hartford, Connecticut 06107
dorman_at_indexdata.com
860-389-1568 or toll free 866-489-1568
fax: 860-561-5613
INDEX DATA Means Business
for Open Source and Open Standards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.indexdata.com
Received on Fri Mar 28 2008 - 14:31:30 EDT