Jonathan,
"Are you assuming this would be a _bad_ thing if Google "replicated" it
-- or simply used our collective records instead of trying to replicate
it? I still don't understand why this is a bad thing. The more the
merrier."
If Google took all those records without permission, yes, it would be a
bad thing. If Google took all those records with permission, created
the ultimate catalog (with location-specific access and more), and then,
with their "ubiquitous access" appeal (and undoubtedly super cheap,
perhaps "free" rates) were able to draw away library customers from OCLC
and others during bad economic times - thereby possibly becoming a
monopoly (tell me: who is going to compete with them, whose mission
again it is to "organize the world's info") with a "cataloging business"
that had previously been built largely on public funds... I am not sure
that that would be a good thing.
"I'm confused. Obvious that WHAT would happen? That OCLC would cease to
exist if Google got it's hands on their records?"
Yes.
"But, um, it looks to me that OCLC has _already_ shared their records
with Google, just under a secret agreement of some sort, instead of
freely."
Not enough to allow them to develop the ultimate catalog. Re-read Karen
Coyle's email.
"But it's certainly not obvious to me that OCLC will cease to
exist no matter who gets their hands on OCLC records."
Well, in a Google-less world maybe, but in a world with Google, it seems
to me that if Google has what OCLC has, Google has everything it needs
and OCLC it out of cards. And yes, to me, that seems obvious (my surety
here could just be due to my overall ignorance, my lack of understanding
the situation though, in which case I invite information that anyone has
that they think might help)
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 Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:35 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> 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?...
>
Are you assuming this would be a _bad_ thing if Google "replicated" it
-- or simply used our collective records instead of trying to replicate
it? I still don't understand why this is a bad thing. The more the
merrier.
> 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?
>
I'm confused. Obvious that WHAT would happen? That OCLC would cease to
exist if Google got it's hands on their records?
But, um, it looks to me that OCLC has _already_ shared their records
with Google, just under a secret agreement of some sort, instead of
freely. But it's certainly not obvious to me that OCLC will cease to
exist no matter who gets their hands on OCLC records.
Dont' get me wrong, OCLC's existence is hardly assured in any event.
OCLC very well might cease to exist _either way_, these are critical
times of changing environments, OCLC has to figure out how to adapt. It
is FAR from obvious to me that the safest thing OCLC can do is
monopolize it's data.
Jonathan
>
Received on Tue Jul 14 2009 - 13:07:02 EDT