Here's yet another thought I had, because, Nathan, while I admit to
being initially frustrated with this conversation, I actually think it's
turned into an interesting and thought provoking one!
So, I actually _am_ kind of scared of OCLC developing a monopoly on
library discovery, which I believe they are trying to do. Why am I
scared of this? Because I worry that the OCLC interface _won't_
actually give my users what they need, but I'll have no other options.
Right now I'm working hard to make my local interfaces work better for
users by seamlessly integrating in all local service we have for a found
document right on the screen with as few clicks as possible. The OCLC
interface probably won't do that, and won't give me any way to do that.
Likewise, OCLC and Google may _choose_ to highlight certain services
and methods of access over others because of business arrangements they
have, which may or may not serve our users -- Google already does this,
and it's not to our users benefit.
So, okay, I actually AM scared of that, from both OCLC and Google.
So I think this through, and what's the remedy? If the data is openly
available, and the 'de facto' monopoly isn't serving my users as well as
I think they could be served -- then I can try to do them better
myself! My library can invest resources into it. Libraries can come
together to collaboratively try to do better. OR, A vendor can try to
do better using the same data, and if they can in fact do better/cheaper
(with cost/benefit analysis), then we'll use them! Any of those are
potentially good outcomes, I don't mind if it's another vendor doing it.
If the data is open, then I think _even Google_ will not have a monopoly
that keeps us from providing alternatives -- unless their product is
really so good that's unneccesary! If they're product is significantly
flawed or missing important things we can think of to serve user needs
-- then open access to the data is what will allow us to provide
something better! If their product (OCLC or Google) is so good and so
cheap that it doesn't make sense for us to invest resources to try and
do that -- then so be it, our users will still have the best we can give
them (taking into account what resources we have).
It's when the data is NOT open, that someone can get a 'de facto'
monopoly that we can not challenge _even though_ it's not serving our
users. As long as the data is open, I'm not scared of 'de facto'
monopolies from Google or Worldcat.
And it's exactly because of this that OCLC _is_ scared of making the
data open. They want to be able to have a de facto monopoly even if
there product _isn't_ the best that can be done, right? That's the point
of controlling access to the data, making sure nobody else _can_ come up
with something better than you! And that's what scares me!
So share the data for free with anyone who wants it. That makes it a LOT
less likely that someone can end up with a 'de facto' monopoly without
actually providing the best product to our users that is possible in the
given environment. I'm equally scared of OCLC _or_ Google being able to
do this if the data _isn't_ open.
Jonathan
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> 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 - 14:03:29 EDT