Speaking of OCLC WorldCat record use policies, the OCLC Record Use Policy Council plans to "submit a new draft policy and recommendations for implementation to the Chair of the OCLC Board of Trustees and OCLC President and CEO, for review and approval by the OCLC Board of Trustees in midyear 2010."
It would be nice if we could share our ideas about what we'd like the policy to say.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net>
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] selection, collection, etc.
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 2:10 AM
Quoting "Mitchell, Michael" <Michael.Mitchell_at_BRAZOSPORT.EDU>:
> I'm a little confused here. If OCLC is providing their MARC records then
> why would we not use those instead of starting over? I would think OCLC
> would be glad to sell sets of them appropriate for various types of
> libraries or custom ordered much like they do for Netlibrary.
Because OCLC is not willing to 'sell' its records, and all evidence shows that their license to date has not allowed use of the full record. Although the policy will be revised, the intention of the proposed policy was to limit down-stream use of records -- which would mean limitations on APIs, downloads of metadata, etc. The response from Chip Nilges of OCLC that Google can use the entire OCLC record is encouraging, but I have seen evidence both in Google and elsewhere that only limited fields from the MARC record are included in contracts with OCLC. Basically, OCLC wishes to prevent competition with WorldCat as a source of cataloging data. If others can display a complete bibliographic record, then libraries would use that data for copy cataloging rather than pay OCLC for the data. At least, that was the logic in the policy that was withdrawn, and I don't think OCLC's motives have changed any in the meanwhile. It's purely a matter of economics on
OCLC's part, since cataloging is the prime source of their revenues.
The 'gotcha' here is that many library catalogs allow Z39.50 access to the full bibliographic record. OCLC's policy was aimed at declaring ownership of the records in library catalogs in a way that a commercial entity like Google would not be allowed to make use of this method to obtain records.
It was just this attempt at restriction on the use of the records that created the OCLC policy furor. I'll be very interested to see what the new policy says.
kc
I realize
> everything won't have a record available but the majority will. Am I
> missing something here? I just don't see the issue in that respect. Jim
> said something about confusing selection and cataloging but I don't see
> how we can select something without providing access. That's where I see
> our library involved- mediating between our students and millions and
> millions of titles. That mediation will include providing catalog
> records for our select group of titles that support our students and our
> mission.
>
>
> Michael Mitchell
> Technical Services Librarian
> Brazosport College
> Lake Jackson, TX
> michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Montibello, Joseph P.
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:05 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] selection, collection, etc.
>
> Ok, I'm in way over my head here. First, thanks to the list for a really
> useful discussion. Just a few thoughts...
>
> Jim W. wrote:
>
> "These materials will be easily available directly from their office
> desks and from their homes"
>
> One of our problems is the number of people who already, way before
> Google's Big Deal, think that everything they need is online. Those
> people are lost to us right now, until we come up with something they'll
> see on the evening news that makes them want to come back to the
> library. Current library users are people who need something that they
> don't think they can get online. They aren't all going to disappear the
> moment the Big Deal is approved, but they're the ones we need to focus
> on. (Somehow.)
>
> "each library is supposed to do this? When and who will do it? We do it
> cooperatively? OK, that's fine. How long will that take?"
>
> I think that we will have to do it cooperatively. And we will have to
> do it to a minimum standard of quality (*to* that minimum and not "as
> far above that standard as we can"). Speed is important here. "Just
> good enough" has beaten out "carefully thought out and structured" too
> many times. It would be a big change for some subset of libraries to
> jump out ahead, do this without permission and blessing and the final
> approval of an official representative committee, and produce something
> "just good enough" to get noticed and used.
>
> Google scanning all these books is an example we should learn from.
> From a business standpoint, they should never have started scanning
> books because the copyright issues were impossible. Whoops, now it might
> be possible...and when they can clear that hurdle, they'll have
> something ready to go in Google Labs that week.
>
> Basically, if a self-appointed group (*ahempeopleonthislistHrhm*)
> divvied up the library world in an arbitrary way (e.g.
> Public/Academic/School/something else), and then put together a way for
> librarians within their chosen realm to select and catalog (again, just
> well enough) things from Google, and then started twisting arms to get
> professional groups and major libraries on board, some of us in the
> little places could be begging our own higher-ups for a chance to help.
> Little places would gain recognition for our institutions; bigger places
> would gain an army of grunts to hammer out a few items each to add to
> the collection. Not as good as local selection, for a million reasons,
> but maybe it would be a decent compromise between "let google do it all
> however they want" and "we have to catalog these 8 million things by the
> end of this fiscal year."
>
> I have a list of people that I would put on this committee, people I've
> never met, but whose opinions mean a lot to me. Many of them are
> regulars on this list. I bet everyone who reads this list could come up
> with a similar list of names of people who could bootstrap and lead a
> cross-institution group, gain some traction with other libraries, and do
> *Something* within three months of the approval of the Big Deal that at
> least the library world would be excited about. Translating that
> excitement beyond library journals and listservs to the public, would be
> something we would have to worry about after we had *Something*.
>
> Joe Montibello
> Class of 1945 Library
> Phillips Exeter Academy
> Web: http://www.exeter.edu/library
> Blog: http://academylibrary.wordpress.com
>
--Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Sep 18 2009 - 13:15:13 EDT