Karen C: "I think OCLC has some key services that libraries need and
probably will continue to need. That shouldn't mean, though, that we
can't share our metadata."
Am I wrong to guess that the *one thing* Google can't replicate is the
mass of MARC records devoted to all those old books?...
" What we don't have from OCLC are the calculations that they made that
lead to a conclusion that the data must be protected or OCLC will cease
to exist (which is what they implied in the language of the policy). And
since we aren't privy to those calculations that OCLC has made..."
Karen, I don't like the OCLC secrecy, hardball, and downright
"we're-not-a-business-but-we-act-like-one" stuff either, but maybe, in
regards to the cessation of OCLC's existence (if Google gets its hands
on all the MARC records) some people just consider it obvious that this
would happen?
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: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:48 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Well, I say the first choice. Yet, even if I couldn't work as a
librarian, I'd hope there would be others who would be able to serve the
whole public at large. What if, in the end, its not an either-or, and
choice number 1 can't really be accomplished to the degree it is today,
without choice number 2 (understood not as libraries per se, but at
least as library-like-institutions set up to serve the general public)?
This seems likely to me...
>
Sure. That may be the solution. But if it isn't, we still shouldn't
stand in the way of what works for people.
>
>
> "If we keep everything to ourselves and expect that everyone will seek
us out for our knowledge and our 'superior data' I think we are sadly
mistaken."
>
> I think this is right. But maybe OCLC thinks: with superior data and
some innovation that approximates the "cutting edge", we will still be
needed (perhaps not sensed by everyone, but by enough to make what we do
somewhat viable in an increasingly algorithm-governed and technocratic
world)?
>
I don't see the options as "wide-spread metadata" v. "OCLC" -- I think
OCLC has some key services that libraries need and probably will
continue to need. That shouldn't mean, though, that we can't share our
metadata.
What we don't have from OCLC are the calculations that they made that
lead to a conclusion that the data must be protected or OCLC will cease
to exist (which is what they implied in the language of the policy). And
since we aren't privy to those calculations that OCLC has made, we can't
have a conversation with OCLC or among ourselves about the trade-offs we
might have to make to support both open data and centralized services.
The options we are being given are "OCLC as it exists today" v. "no
OCLC." I won't accept those as the only options on faith alone -- I want
to see the data, I want us to make an informed decision as a community.
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 - 12:33:09 EDT