Hey Doll,
This is my reply to the OCLC dude.
Me
> 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 - 03:27:35 EDT