Frances Dean McNamara wrote:
> Frankly, they are not a software development organization and I believe that kind of development should be done by OCLC instead. Maybe that means LC needs a seat on the OCLC Board of Directors, maybe the library community needs to work with OCLC to ensure affordable access to what is needed by smaller libraries, but I think it's not optimal to have LC trying to create and support software for MARC record or other record creation. If they insist on doing that, it should be Open Source then. Just my opinion.
>
Based on what we've seen so far, if it was OCLC that developed this
software, the chances of it being open source are almost 0. So if
you're looking for open source, be careful suggesting that it be OCLC
that do it.
I am hoping something useful will come out of Jennifer Bowen's XC
project at the University of Rochester. They are definitely exploring
new software and models for library metadata control, and I'm impressed
by the way they're thinking about it. And it will be open source.
Jonathan
> Frances McNamara
> University of Chicago
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Dobbs, Aaron
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] FW: [alacoun] Library of Congress Working Group
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a heads up that ALA Council is (rightly) being urged to become familiar with the LC Working Group's recommendations and LC's responses. If ever there was a time when your collective understanding, explanations, and recommendations were needed by ALA (and ALA Council), now is it.
>
> I've lost track of the NGC4LIB discussions about these documents (but vaguely think I remember reading a bit about it here). I know there are 5 main points to the recommendations and responses -- are there folks on the list out there who would like to take a stab at a recommended positions paper (or maybe 5 separate papers) for ALA Council to consider? I'm happy to collaborate as a "semi-informed layperson" to help make the points understandable to librarian-generalists, if needed.
>
> As one of many Councilors at Large, I'm looking for expert opinions to share with ALA Council to better inform the debate. Feel free to contact me directly at aaron [at] thelibrarian [dot) org with suggestions for blog readings on this topic or papers to share with Council. I'll be happy to consolidate direct replies back to the list, I'll follow the responses on list, too.
>
> Thanks for your collective wisdom and ideas and suggestions and all that...
>
> -Aaron
> :-)'
>
> Aaron Dobbs
> ALA Councilor at Large
> OITP Advisory Committee Member
> LITA Web Coordinator for Committees
> --
> Systems Librarian and Assistant Professor
> Ezra Lehman Memorial Library
> Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
> 1871 Old Main
> Shippensburg, PA 17257
> voice: 717.477.1018
> fax: 717.477.1389
> AIM: AaronLibrarian
> Y!M: AaronTheLibrarian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janet Hill [mailto:Janet.Hill_at_Colorado.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:18 PM
> To: 'ALA Council'
> Subject: [alacoun-ro] [alacoun] Library of Congress Working Group
>
> Dear all,
>
> The organization of information, and providing access to information sources
> (in other words, bibliographic control) are the foundations of our
> discipline. In January of 2008, the Library of Congress Working Group on
> the Future of Bibliographic Control (which included 3 members named by ALA)
> issued its report, "On the Record" which can be found at:
> http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pd
> f.
>
> On June 1, the Library of Congress issued a point-by-point response to the
> report. This response can be found at:
> http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/LCWGRptResponse_DM_053008.pdf
>
> Many of the recommendations of the LCWG were directed to the Library of
> Congress, but many were directed to "All" or to other specific groups,
> including ALA and ALA-APA, as well as to individual institutions. Taking
> action on the recommendations will involve us all. The actions taken will
> have an impact on us all.
>
> Yet On the Record itself has been widely viewed within the profession as
> "oh, something for catalogers" and except for catalogers, relatively few
> have read it or considered what they might contribute to the changes called
> for, or what impact these changes might have on them. A depressingly large
> number haven't even heard of it.
>
> But the future of bibliographic control is not a cataloging issue. It's not
> just catalogers' future, it's YOUR future, whether you are a reference
> librarian, a children's librarian, a library trustee, a support staff member
> in interlibrary loan, .... whoever you are, and whatever type of library you
> serve in.
>
> And the future of bibliographic control, and therefore of libraries involves
> more than just what LC can or will do. It involves US. It involves YOU.
>
> Please, whoever you are, whatever your specialization, whatever kind of
> library you work in, whatever segment of the bibliographic ecosystem you
> inhabit (publisher, ILS vendor, etc.) take the time to read the report.
> Take the time to read LC's response. Consider what response your own
> library can or should make, and what actions your own library can take to
> move us toward the future. If you are on the planning committee for a
> professional association, consider scheduling a session at your next
> conference on the LCWG report and its implications for us all.
>
> I had considered putting together a resolution calling upon the Executive
> Board to study both On the Record and the LC response, to engage the
> attention of all segments of the profession, and to develop (in consultation
> with ALCTS, but not ALCTS alone) a plan for the Association in responding to
> the challenges laid out in the recommendations of the Report.
>
> I may still do so, but, having mentioned it here, perhaps I won't have to.
> In the meantime, I urge all of you, as responsible persons and leaders of
> our profession, to read the reports, and to urge your colleagues to do the
> same. No doubt there will be details in some of the recommendations that
> will not hold your interest, or that will be so specialized that they don't
> fully "sink in" (especially in LC's response, which full of details). But
> the report is more than the specific recommendations. It contains plentiful
> background information, establishes context, and tells us where we are, what
> the consequences are if we don't make certain changes, and what the benefits
> will be if we do.
>
> As a profession (and we aren't unique in this) we hold summit meetings and
> conferences to talk about what should change and write a report, but all too
> often the reports are read and filed away. Please don't let this one
> gather dust, too. Let's don't let the future either "just happen" to us, or
> "get away from us."
>
> Thanks for your attention.
>
> janet swan hill
> councilor at large
> janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
> *****
> Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
> - Gustav Mahler
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Jun 11 2008 - 10:03:23 EDT