The problem with using OCLC control numbers as universal identifiers, as
I see it, is two-fold. First is the fact that they do in fact identify
particular WorldCat records, and there may be extensive duplication
among OCLC records representing a given resource, including the various
"allowable duplicates". The only way I see to get around this
problem--if it can be gotten around--would be to subscribe to an xOCLC
web service analogous to OCLC's xISBN service, which leads to the second
problem: OCLC control numbers are proprietary, as would be any
resolution service.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 8:39 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Searching
I think currently the OCLCnum is the best identifier we've currently got
for things that lack ISBNs, as I argue here:
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/oclc-numbers-as-manifestation-id
entifiers/
Many records in many of our catalogers lack OCLCnums too, but I think
this is feasibly rectifiable, as explained there.
Of course, for this to work as a target, people providing data on the
"sending" end would need to use OCLC nums more (for non-ISBN-holding
items). I think it's both to OCLC's benefit _and_ to the wider library
communities benefit to encourage this.
For things that do have ISBNs, OCLC WorldCat APIs (several could
potentially be used), thingISBN, or Google Books API all provide the
ability to translate. The Google Books API is particularly interesting
in that it's free (unlike the OCLC service), but nearly as comprehensive
as the OCLC service, since it's based on OCLC data shared with google!
This isn't an intended use of the Google Books API, but if you make a
request for an ISBN, you frequently get back data including an OCLC num
(and vice versa).
Jonathan
Ed Jones wrote:
> One area where I see problems for catalogs as targets--where one comes
> to a catalog record [or set of records] for a given work via a
> mouse-click from an external Web page mentioning that work--is that
this
> sort of action is best facilitated by universal identifiers in the
> source page (ISBN, DOI, etc.), and many bibliographic
> objects--especially older ones--lack universal identifiers. While the
> library community has been merrily assigning ISSNs to long-dead
> periodicals, the publishing community has had no reason to do
something
> similar with ISBNs (even with the recent doubling of the potential
> universe of ISBNs), mainly because older books belong to everybody
(and
> so to nobody) and ISBNs are assigned by distinct somebodies, mainly
for
> inventory control. To paraphrase Ranganathan, identifiers are for
use,
> which to me means there must be some self-interest involved for the
> agency assigning the identifier; conversely, there must be some
> disincentive to agencies preferring (and promoting) their own
> proprietary identifiers such as ASINs, LCCNs, and OCLC control
numbers.
> I'm not aware of any movement on this front, though it has had some
> prominent backing (e.g., Jimmy Wales).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Birkin James Diana
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:38 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Searching
>
> Ed,
>
>
>> ...I had hoped to find out about others' experiences in this regard
>> and what they thought it might mean in terms of the future shape of
>> the catalog and cataloging, and why.
>>
>
> I think what you're doing makes complete sense, and is the natural
> result of libraries no longer being sole gatekeepers of knowledge or
> access to it -- but having a very useful role in facilitating access.
>
> This is why when we revamped our ILL-process, we decided to start folk
> at WorldCat instead of our catalog. After finding the item, a click on
> the prominent 'Request this item' link takes our users to the catalog
> record if we have it -- *and* if it's available -- otherwise, after a
> log-in, the request is automatically routed to one of our consortial
> borrowing partners or ILLiad, and the book arrives a few days later,
> with amazon-like confirmation emails along the way. It's so easy, most
> co-workers whose habits I'm aware of now use this method of getting a
> book.
>
> I don't see this as in any way implying that we shouldn't make our
> catalog as useful as it can be; there are naturally some use-cases
> that would lead one to first use the catalog, and an increasing number
> that would lead one to first use amazon/google/worldcat/etc.
>
> -Birkin
>
> ---
> Birkin James Diana
> Programmer, Integrated Technology Services
> Brown University Library
> birkin_diana_at_brown.edu
>
>
> On May 7, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Ed Jones wrote:
>
>
>> I hadn't meant to stir up a hornet's nest. My original post was
>> simply to report how I typically do research. As someone who has
>> cataloged all my professional life, I'm a bit alarmed at how little
>> I use the library catalog to get what I need for my research. I'm
>> also embarrassed to say I'm not sure what it all means. Perhaps I'm
>> an outlier and my experience isn't that relevant to the discussion.
>> By posting, I had hoped to find out about others' experiences in
>> this regard and what they thought it might mean in terms of the
>> future shape of the catalog and cataloging, and why.
>>
>
>
Received on Fri May 08 2009 - 13:07:33 EDT