>>> "Mitchell, Michael" <Michael.Mitchell_at_BRAZOSPORT.EDU> 01.02.2010 15:01 >>>
That's good. I don't understand the statement "surprisingly few
libraries have so far set free the data they produce themselves." There
are hundreds of libraries offering free direct Z39.50 access to their
bib records. Just because you don't like MARC doesn't negate the fact
that the information is easily available and free.
"Free access" doesn't equal open data. "Open" - as I understand it - implies the possibility to download the whole data at once. And you can't do that via Z39.50-access. See the open definition (http://opendefinition.org/) which says in short:
"A piece of knowledge is open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."
In the full definition it says:
"The work shall be available as a whole..." with the comment: "As a whole' prevents the limitation of access by indirect means, for example by only allowing access to a few items of a database at a time."
So, while library data is free available it isn't 'open' in the widest sense of the word. And surely an open license makes it clear for every (re)user what she is allowed to do with the data. By now a good deal of data in the internet (not only bibliographic data) isn't licensed at all and leaves potential users clueless. That even applies to the data in the Linked Data Cloud (see http://cloudofdata.com/2009/10/licensing-of-linked-data/).
Adrian
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 09:23:40 EST