> Giving such abbreviated catalog records certainly does not help our users
> much, and much less than it could, while it makes a mockery of our pleadings
> to others to share, share, share your metadata. But from another point of
> view, I believe this provides an excellent example of just how controversial
> this "sharing" can be.
It is also totally out of whack with libraries letting Googlebot and
other spiders will crawl their catalogs. Why allow/encourage slow,
resource intensive, and less effective means of sharing this
information while throwing bricks at anyone who wants to do it the
efficient way?
This situation reminds me of z39.50. That was supposed to be the
original Napster for libraries. Libraries clamored for it, but no one
(including the libraries) really used it for much beyond trivial uses
such as downloading citations. As soon as people started trying to do
actually useful with the data, it suddenly became controversial, words
like "record nabbing" starting getting tossed around. Meanwhile, we
started figuring out how to display Amazon cover art and reviews in
our catalogs...
kyle
Received on Wed May 28 2008 - 13:11:16 EDT