Jonathan,
Thanks for your words - and patience. :) Really, I hope that others
are benefitting by this conversation.
Yes, you're right: I don't necessarily want OCLC to put the cataloging
vendors out of business either.
I used to be all for releasing all MARC data in an uninhibited way...
it's only lately that I've been thinking more of the implications of
that and had some second thoughts.
In any case, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I'd best take a
break for a while, huh? : )
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 12:28 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
Hey Nathan, I thought of something else.
What if OCLC produces something so good and so cheap that it'll make it
de facto impossible for anyone else to ever produce a book discovery
interface again?
That's what they're trying to do with worldcat.org, ain't it?
You scared of that like you are of Google doing it?
I'm scared of it only because of OCLC's ability to prevent other people
from competing by _restricting access to the data_. If they share the
data with anyone who wants it, but get a 'de facto' monopoly by being
_better_ --- so be it, it serves our users to have the best they can
get.
Jonathan
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> If Google really COULD provide a better (cost/benefit) alternative to
> everything libraries were doing... then that would still serve our
> users, so be it.
>
> I don't think that's going to happen though. Partially because Google
> has pretty much no interest in doing it. I mean, they have an interest
> in doing part of it with Google Books, sure. So, okay, let's ignore
the
> interest. I just am not scared of it, of the idea that somehow Google,
> if they had access to all our data, will produce something so good and
> so cheap that it'll make it impossible for anyone else to provide a
> discovery service for books ever again.
>
> But if that DID happen... so be it, our users still win. It's changing
> times we're in. But I think people exagerate Google's power.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
>
>> 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 - 13:44:08 EDT