Nicholas,
Following along from Jim Weinheimer's excellent point: "We argued that by
putting out a good quality product that others could use and learn from,
they would do a better job in creating their records, which would also be
better when they later shared with us."
You might want to remind your current consortium members that those 'other'
libraries in your system who are not currently in the automated consortium
are being courted to join, and if any of them take you up on that offer, it
is in your best interest that their records are as good as they can possibly
be. Think how much easier it will be to merge their records with the
existing records in the consortium database if their records came from the
consortium database in the first place. OCLC number matching-very useful!
Deborah
------
Deborah Fritz
MARC Database Consultant
The MARC of Quality
www.marcofquality.com
Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bennyhoff
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:42 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Z39.50 question
>
> 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
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
> virus signature database 2979 (20080327) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 2979 (20080327) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Received on Sun Mar 30 2008 - 20:11:19 EDT