You could replace OCLC here with "ABC" and Google with "XYZ" and still
have a coherent argument. It's that having limited choices in a market
isn't a good thing.
It doesn't make sense that a single solution should serve all libraries.
Libraries are not a homogeneous unit. I suspect that there are small
libraries that are not using OCLC because they don't want to have to
catalog to the strict standards that the "collective" needs for its
complex data and resource sharing. Those should have another solution
available to them. There are special libraries that cannot share openly
(company libraries, for example). There could be solutions for them (and
there may be, I don't know that area). Archives have special needs, as
we know, which is why they have their own cataloging code.
We also need folks in our market who are essentially "unessential" and
therefore have the freedom to innovate that OCLC does not have. You can
fling data around in a small market in a way that you can't if you are
the one central source for everything that most libraries are depending on.
We have to remember, however, that OCLC got where it is today by
*rescuing* failed library systems. WLN, NetLibrary, RLG -- OCLC didn't
kill them, it bought them up when they were going belly-up. Any time I
hear someone saying that they want to enter the library market with a
product, I warn them that it's not a great market if you really need to
make money. I don't doubt that OCLC struggles, as do all of the library
vendors. This is what makes open source and its ability to support
small, home grown and funky development so appealing to me -- it's just
possible that libraries need to fulfill some of their management needs
without money changing hands.
kc
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 - 16:07:07 EDT