Hear, Hear!
Speaking strictly for myself (see Below).
Although I'm uncomfortable with the role of self-appointed defender of OCLC, and am sure they can be faulted on many points, they have reliably provided cataloging for nearly 4 decades. Yeah RLIN was great, except for the going bankrupt part and regular assessments to member libraries to keep its head above water in the years preceding its demise.
It's pretty naïve to imagine that all the infrastructure of OCLC should cost nothing or is worth nothing. It's a bit like thinking that driving is free vs tax subsidized public transit, until you remember that roads are constructed and maintained (or not) with tax money!
JJ
**Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of the Queens Library.**
Jane Jacobs
Asst. Coord., Catalog Division
Queens Borough Public Library
89-11 Merrick Blvd.
Jamaica, NY 11432
tel.: (718) 990-0804
e-mail: Jane.W.Jacobs_at_queenslibrary.org
FAX. (718) 990-8566
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle Banerjee
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:58 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: OCLC and Michigan State at Impasse Over SkyRiver Cataloging, Resource Sharing Costs
> I'm not quite sure what OAI-PMH would offer in this situation. The
> value-add of OCLC's shared cataloging is that it provides a searchable
> aggregated index of bibliographic records that, in turn, feeds an ILL
> service based on holdings (based on who has particular records).
The key word being holdings.
For many years, any library can avoid OCLC entirely and download
records from many sources using z39.50 or doing something clever with
data from public sources to create records. But this is a bad idea for
a couple of reasons.
There may be a lot of garbage in the WorldCat database, but as soon
as you start mining all these other sources, you'll see it's far more
reliable than the alternatives as a source of metadata. This increases
the time (i.e. cost) of getting a good record in the catalog.
More importantly, without a common control number (ISN's are highly
problematic for a number of reasons), keeping track of holdings
becomes much harder. It becomes WAY harder for libraries to work
together as consortia and resource sharing gets hosed fast. In short,
the only thing that libraries really have on the Amazons, Borders, etc
gets decimated.
As a membership organization, OCLC answers to its members. That means
that if something's screwed up, it falls upon us to help them fix it.
I realize OCLC moves far slower than many of us would like. But given
that libraries typically move at the speed of goo when it comes to
making small adjustments to local workflow, labeling, etc when only a
handful of individuals are involved, I'm not sure why we would expect
a different organization to work so much better.
kyle
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
Received on Mon Mar 08 2010 - 12:18:21 EST