I agree that the best use of our expensively collected metadata -- is to
give it away to all and sundry who want it and will do interesting
things with it! Including Google.
I'm not sure 'library leaders' agree. Perhaps because "letting people
use our metadata" means to them "giving up responsibility for serving
our users." It doesn't to me. Just because someone else is using our
metadata doesn't mean we have to stop. The more the merrier!
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> I had said:
>
> "What if Google, whose goal it is to "organize the world's information"
> (even as they get into the OS business and everything else, THIS is
> their stated goal), and can hire the best of the best (libs and
> otherwise), wanted to "compete" in making the ultimate catalog with the
> MARC records OCLC has in its possession?...
>
> Should libraries (and by extension OCLC) look forward to the day where
> they can just give everything away to Google...
> giving into the added powers that Google's alluring algorithms can
> provide? (after all, if they cease to be concerned about protecting
> their records, may that not, in effect, be what they are doing?)
>
> A real, not a rhetorical, question."
>
> Karen Coyle supplied this helpful info:
>
> "OCLC creates a WorldCat record for the Google digitized copy (with
> Google as the holding library). Google is then provided with *some*
> bibliographic data, but not the complete MARC record. I know this latter
> because when I mentioned to Dan Clancy of Google Books that their
> metadata is so lousy, he replied something to the effect of: that's all
> OCLC will allow us to have... I also assume that it does not allow them
> to display the full bibliographic data, because if they did they would
> eventually be creating a catalog that would near the size of OCLC
> (albeit not in a form that we in libraries would probably recognize)."
>
> Speaking of issues that could come with the proposed Google Book Search
> terminals in libraries (due to poor metadata) she goes on to say:
>
> "This is an area where it would make sense for the OCLC members to
> insist on having a say in the use of their bibliographic records. If
> OCLC is indeed "dumbing down" the records they send to Google they are
> directly in conflict with the interests of their member libraries."
>
> But as Karen essentially said above, OCLC likely does not do this
> because they think Google, with its money and resources, will then
> "organize the world's information", i.e. *complete their mission
> statement* with the help of libraries : ) (and then of course,
> eventually get "fossilized" like Dewey, Tim : ) )
>
> So Karen - why were you confused about why OCLC seems afraid of
> competition? I am confused by your confusion. : )
>
> In other words, the implicit answer to my question above is: "yes,
> libraries (and by extension OCLC) should look forward to the day where
> they can just give everything away to Google..." In fact, let's get on
> with it!
>
> So, tech-leaders of the library world: everyone think that's a good
> idea? (because if you do, chances are better it will happen). The
> sooner I get an answer to this, the sooner I can start spending all my
> spare time exploring new career options : )
>
> Regards,
> Nathan Rinne
> Media Cataloging Technician
> Educational Service Center
> 11200 93rd Avenue North
> Maple Grove MN. 55369
> Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9:11 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
>
> Quoting "Rinne, Nathan (ESC)" <RinneN_at_DISTRICT279.ORG>:
>
>
>
>> I firmly believe that Google could never make something approximating
>>
> a
>
>> dependable, quality catalog without the records that libraries have
>> worked so hard to make. Should libraries (and by extension OCLC) look
>> forward to the day where they can just give everything away to
>>
> Google...
>
>> giving into the added powers that Google's alluring algorithms can
>> provide? (after all, if they cease to be concerned about protecting
>> their records, may that not, in effect, be what they are doing?)
>>
>
> My understanding is that Google receives a record from OCLC for every
> book it digitizes. The records do not come directly from the library
> catalogs because OCLC is applying something similar to the currently
> withdrawn policy on record use. OCLC creates a WorldCat record for the
> Google digitized copy (with Google as the holding library). Google is
> then provided with *some* bibliographic data, but not the complete
> MARC record. I know this latter because when I mentioned to Dan Clancy
> of Google Books that their metadata is so lousy, he replied something
> to the effect of: that's all OCLC will allow us to have.
>
> Now, Google could use something like Z39.50 and grab a full MARC
> record from a library catalog for every book it has. However, Google
> has a contract with OCLC relating to the records, and we do not know
> the terms of that contract, but I,m guessing that it requires them to
> use only the record that OCLC provides. I also assume that it does not
> allow them to display the full bibliographic data, because if they did
> they would eventually be creating a catalog that would near the size
> of OCLC (albeit not in a form that we in libraries would probably
> recognize).
>
> I think it is ironic that many libraries will be subscribing to the
> post-court agreement Google/AAP settlement, and therefore will be
> providing their users with Google Book Search as a library resource.
> But that resource will not have library-quality metadata. This will
> make any cross searching between library catalogs and Google difficult
> (e.g. searching on subjects in both with be totally different), and
> will also make it hard for librarians to help users find what they are
> looking for in the GBS database.
>
> This is an area where it would make sense for the OCLC members to
> insist on having a say in the use of their bibliographic records. If
> OCLC is indeed "dumbing down" the records they send to Google they are
> directly in conflict with the interests of their member libraries.
>
> kc
>
>
>
>
>> -----------------------------------
>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Jul 14 2009 - 11:33:30 EDT