I really really want the GBS Data Api to reveal the OCLC number or LCCN
if Google has it. This is something Karen already alludes to. The GBS
Data API describing the data returns describes inclusion of this data as
possible (search for 'lccn' and 'oclc' on this page:
http://code.google.com/apis/books/docs/gdata/reference.html#Elements),
but the API never in fact reveals them in actual practice. (The API
_does_, sort of kind of, allow you _look up_ by LCCN and OCLCnum. But
the responses you retrieve don't include possible IDs in addition to
what you searched on).
There are cases where it's clear that the Googel database _does_ know
about an OCLC number. Because, for instance, the item detail page will
include a link to worldcat for the item, and this link will include the
OCLC number. However the GBS API response for that item does not
include the OCLC number.
I really really want it to. That would make it easier for my software to
figure out what's what. Same for LCCN, if Google has it.
I've mentioned this to OCLC before -- this would obviously (to me) serve
OCLC well too, to have the OCLC id included in the GBS api. And OCLC
has said "we don't have much sway over what Google does, sorry."
So I'm not really sure what sway the "we" that Karen wants to talk to
Google will have. I have never been succesful at getting Google to pay
much attention to any of my requests before -- and that's when I
actually had a contact in the GBS project who was interested in talking
to me, which I don't anymore (he left the project, and his replacement
left, and I think even his replacement's replacement was reassigned;
I've got no more contacts).
But, Karen, if your compiling a list, please include this on it. It's
important.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
>> 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 - 13:57:08 EDT