Regardless of OCLC's official position, I'm reasonably sure (without
being a lawyer) that anyone can use an OCLC number in any kind of data
structure in any field they like, without OCLC having any legal control
over it.
But it would probably be wise of us (for our own benefit) to be clear in
our records if the OCLC number actually means the record its' embedded
in _is_ an OCLC record, or instead is just being used as a manifestation
identifier. This may require 'creative' uses of MARC.
The parallel record issue is interesting, thanks. I still think that
OCLC number probably serves as a better manifestation identifier than
anything else that's likely to come along, and can be profitably used as
such until/unless something else does.
Bryan Baldus wrote:
> On Friday, May 08, 2009 12:14 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
>> I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty damn confident that you do not need OCLC's permission to use OCLC control numbers however you want. For reasons I explain in that blog post.
>>
>
> Without looking into the official position, it is my belief that, in MARC records, the OCLC number may be used by anyone in 035 without issue. However, there may be prohibitions against non-OCLC members (or others) using the OCLC number in the 001 for records not coming directly from OCLC.
>
>
>> I'm curious what the "allowable" duplicates are in WorldCat though?
>>
>
> Parallel records would be the most likely form of "allowable" duplicate. If a record has been created with 040$b in one language, and another library comes along whose language differs from that $b, then they are supposed to enter a parallel record in their own language, even though both records describe the identical thing.
>
> Bryan Baldus
> Cataloger
> Quality Books Inc.
> The Best of America's Independent Presses
> 1-800-323-4241x402
> bryan.baldus_at_quality-books.com
>
>
Received on Fri May 08 2009 - 13:43:17 EDT