Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> B.G. Sloan wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I see this proposed new policy as OCLC's attempt to keep
> > a lid on innovation, to prevent innovative library and non-library
> > Web 2.0 developers from making creative use of library metadata.
> > ...
> > think OCLC feels a little threatened by what's going on in this age
> > of open systems and they are scrambling to make sure they don't lose
> > "control" over "their" data.
> >
> What appears as an "attempt to keep a lid on innovation" can only
> result from the simple fact that their revenue derives from their sale
> of records. OCLC's funding would have to be revised from a payment per
> record use to, e.g., an annual membership fee based on, say, the size of
> the library, by whatever yardstick one would measure this. Since
> libraries are the owners, this issue is their's to consider, after they
> agree on a new policy of innovation and openness.
I agree, although I can fully understand OCLC's proposed policy from their point of view and can understand why both libraries and librarians would support it. It isn't that OCLC wants to "prevent innovative library and non-library" development; they are interested in OCLC's survival, and many librarians see OCLC as equaling the "community of libraries." Therefore, the survival of OCLC equals the survival of libraries. I can relate to all of that.
But I disagree. I think it's obvious that the real innovation in information storage and retrieval is happening outside of libraries, not inside, and it is up to libraries to get on board. Nobody will wait for us. I think it's important to admit that all of these developments will take place with or without our metadata, our methods, our experience, or our input.
The times are becoming very serious and I think it's important for libraries to think harder about what it is we really do. It's like how the horse and buggy industry reacted to automobiles. Many in the H&B industry thought they were in the business of horses and buggies when they were not. They were actually in the business of transportation, but many refused to change.
I think we are facing a similar point in the library world: are we in the business of putting physical items on shelves and lending them out? Are we in the business of putting authors' names on records and throwing on a couple of subjects?
I think we are doing something else, something like "selecting and organizing information resources for retrieval by intelligent persons," which really opens it up. Still, I may be completely wrong and we are *really* doing something else. It may not be any easier for us to determine what we are really doing at this point in time as it was for the horse and buggy industry during their time. I think the only way to find out is to experiment widely and profligately. Mistakes will be made, but mistakes are necessary if anyone is to learn.
This is basically why I am against OCLC's proposed policy. We must have innovation and freedom of maneuver, especially at this moment.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Apr 15 2009 - 05:44:43 EDT