Jonathan
I didn't mean that one needed permission to use OCLC control numbers,
just as one doesn't need Amazon's permission to use ASINs: I'm sure in
each case the agency involved encourages their use by others, if only
for competitive advantage. My point was that these numbers were designed
for other purposes by the proprietor, and their assignment, etc., is
guided by these proprietary purposes. As you point out--I did read your
blog entry--the ISBN has its own problems as a universal identifier. I
suspect a universal identifier is a Holy Grail, eternally remote. While
there's a great deal of overlap between the universe of OCLC control
numbers and the universe of ISBNs--especially among resources collected
by US libraries--each also has a large number of galaxies not
represented in the other.
In answer to your question, duplication among OCLC records is generally
permitted when official cataloging practice within a given jurisdiction
is at variance with OCLC practice and the alternative to allowing
duplication would be to lose those customers (e.g., Canadian
French-language cataloging [and language-specific cataloging in
general], non-US records for microform reproductions, etc.).
Unintentional duplication in WorldCat is of course much more rampant,
and OCLC is trying vigilantly to eliminate these, though it's a
Sisyphean task.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:14 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Searching
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.
Certainly OCLC numbers are imperfect as manifestation identifiers. Any
service of bibliographic identifiers is going to be. Even ISBN is. But
I doubt that any new system you try to come up with is going to be less
imperfect than WorldCat at avoiding duplication etc. I'm curious what
the "allowable" duplicates are in WorldCat though? If there are _many_
of these, that might change my opinion about the suitability of OCLC
numbers for this task. But mistakes in WorldCat don't, mistakes will
happen in ANY system.
We've already got OCLC numbers. It's an expensive thing to create. OCLC
is already doing it. You do NOT need to be an OCLC member or have OCLC's
permission to use OCLC numbers however you want (and this is in fact a
_seperate_ issue from the OCLC Record Use kerfuffle. Even if maybe you
DO need OCLC's permission to use the _records_, that still doesn't mean
you need their permission to simply use OCLC numbers. I am quite
confident you do not, although I am not a lawyer).
Jonathan
Ed Jones wrote:
> 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 - 14:16:45 EDT