On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:57:30 -0400, Goldner,Matt <goldnerm_at_OCLC.ORG> wrote:
>I wanted to clarify what OCLC is doing with WorldCat and Google Books.
We've made the entire WorldCat database (excluding certain metadata records
that OCLC is contractually prohibited from providing) available to Google to
support discovery of the books Google has digitized from library
collections. In exchange, Google has agreed to display a link to libraries
on pages describing library digitized materials. Google is also providing
OCLC with the metadata needed to represent, in WorldCat, all of the library
materials Google is digitizing.
>
>Our focus in structuring the agreement was to support the interests of our
members, who wanted WorldCat records to be used for their digitized
collections in Google. We also wanted to ensure that libraries were present
as a choice on the pages describing their digitized content.
>
>We continue to work with Google. We expect the relationship to evolve to
meet the needs of our members, and we are listening closely to these
discussions.
>
>Chip Nilges
>Vice President, Business Development
>OCLC
I appreciate the clarification, but for me, it only raises further
questions. If there is all of our fabulous metadata out there, why are there
the problems raised in the post on Language Log? Specifically, the example
of 1774 date. I quote:
"Take the book London of to-day, from the Harvard Library. The date of 1890
is plainly evident on the cover (despite a botched scan), which reads
"London of to-day 1890." It's clearly repeated on the title page: "Boston:
Roberts Brothers. 1890." And it's correctly recorded in the Harvard record
for the book. But Google dated the book 1774, presumably on the basis of the
front-matter advertisement for a shirtmaker that boasts it was established
in that year: "Harborow's Shirt & Hosiery Manufacturers/To the Royal Family/
15, Cockspur Street, Charing Cross, S. W, Established 1774."
I simply assumed that this mistake must have been the work of a program,
rather than a human — I mean, could someone really misread that ad as
providing a publication date? The answer, according to Jon, is, well,
actually, somebody did."
Is this date taken from an OCLC record? I certainly hope not. If not, do you
know what is going on?
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Sep 09 2009 - 03:26:45 EDT