Jonathan Rochkind said:
"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 agree with that.
And as far as library-developed computer-based discovery tools are concerned we librarians have had, what, maybe 30+ years to get it right? And we're still arguing about how to do it right? Maybe it's time for us to step aside and let someone else take a crack at it. But before that happens, OCLC needs to stop being so protective of our data.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU> wrote:
> From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 1:24 PM
> 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 - 14:01:01 EDT