I'm not sure if this exactly answers Deborah Fritz's question, but...
Check out the FAQ for the proposed "Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records" (http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/faq.pdf).
Near the bottom of page 7 there's a section headed "Attribution of WorldCat".
Once the new policy is in effect, every record downloaded from WorldCat will automatically contain a 996 field populated with information citing the policy: "For its own transfers to WorldCat records to members, nonmembers and third parties, OCLC will follow widely adopted practices for attributing the source of transferred data by prospectively adding 996 fields to records transferred from WorldCat."
Of course that's not a solution for records downloaded by libraries prior to the effective date of the proposed policy. Regarding these records, the FAQ says: "For records that already exist in your local system, we encourage you to add the 996 field to WorldCat records transferred to others."
Interestingly, libraries are not required to retain the 996 fields that OCLC will provide after the effective date of the policy, and they are just "encouraged" to retrospectively add the 996 to WorldCat records transferred to others.
Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Deborah Fritz <deborah_at_marcofquality.com> wrote:
> From: Deborah Fritz <deborah_at_marcofquality.com>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC's proposed policy on record use - my two cents worth
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 2:45 PM
> Does anyone know exactly *how* OCLC proposes to identify a
> record as
> 'belonging' to them, in order to keep control of
> the data and prevent
> 'unauthorized' use of it?
>
> Thanks,
> 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 B.G.
> Sloan
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:33 PM
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> > Subject: [NGC4LIB] OCLC's proposed policy on
> record use - my
> > two cents worth
> >
> > Since I no longer work for an organization that
> processes
> > OCLC records, the institutional contractual
> implications of
> > the proposed policy don't concern me as much as
> they might
> > have in the past. For example, back in the late 1980s
> I had
> > several skirmishes with OCLC regarding record use in a
>
> > consortial online union catalog.
> >
> > 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. I 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.
> >
> > If you look at the proposed policy from this
> perspective it
> > makes perfect sense...for OCLC. But does it make sense
> for
> > the library community? Library systems are in danger
> of being
> > further marginalized in the information society if
> their
> > metadata are locked down even tighter in library-only
> silos.
> > If libraries want to play a bigger role on the web
> they need
> > to fundamentally re-think how their metadata are used,
>
> > including use of that data by third parties. If
> OCLC's
> > proposed policy stands as written, libraries will
> effectively
> > be barred from considering innovative uses of their
> data
> > unless OCLC gives its blessing. And given the tone of
> the
> > proposed policy, how likely will that be?
> >
> > Bernie Sloan
> > Sora Associates
> > Bloomington, IN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
> version of
> > virus signature database 4004 (20090413) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version
> of virus signature
> database 4007 (20090414) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
Received on Sat Apr 18 2009 - 20:00:39 EDT