> To answer Karen's most recent post, Google can use any WC metadata
> field. And it's important to note as well that our agreement with
> Google is not exclusive. We're happy to work with others in the
> same way. The goal, as I said in my original post, is to support
> the efforts of our members to bring their collections online, make
> them discoverable, and drive traffic to library services.
>
That's great. (I'm assuming Chip's answer of "field" means "field and
subfield." So now we need to be talking to Google about what fields we
want to see in GBS that will make it easier to combine GBS with
library services. We could go the route of saying: "Keep the whole
MARC record," but it would probably be best to come up with a minimum
and let Google decide if it wants to include more.
At the very least, it seems to me that the functionality that we need
has to do with "headings" -- that is, that we would want to be able to
connect names and subjects in library catalogs to books in GBS, so
that we could create metasearches. Ideally, names should be
identified, where possible, with LCNA record IDs. I also think that we
want all of the possible identifiers: ISBN (which Google keeps now),
LCCN, OCLC number. Others?
kc
Received on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 13:42:37 EDT