Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>
> But this is exactly Tim's point: it can be proven that very, very few people use Worldcat or even know about it. So, if someone wanted to know if "we already had a copy, and if it was widely held; and we want our rarer holdings to be visible to researchers" they would *not* know because they would have to go to Worldcat in the first place, which is virtually unknown outside the library community. Therefore, when we place materials in Worldcat, we cannot logically conclude that we are making them visible to researchers.
>
Wait, how can this be proven? I think it may likely be true, but I
think WorldCat is making a good effort to put this stuff out there, I'm
not sure how to do better. Not just for people actually manually going
to worldcat.org, but the "Find In a Library" links on Google Books, as
well as Google search for "[something] in a library". Although hmm, this
last no longer has worldcat on the first page of results, it definitely
used to; Google "juice" is a complicated thing. (Saying "just put it on
google" is easier said than done, if you want it to actually come up in
searches_0.
But anyway, you definitely shouldn't assume that having something in
worldcat.org is _sufficient_ to make something visible on google or to
researchers. But it seems like a pretty attempt anyway, which helps
rather than hurts. I doubt you're going to do better "on your own" for
free. If another vendor or consortium or cooperative can do better at a
better price/quality point.... I'd really really like to see a
marketplace where we have the opportunity to find out.
Jonathan
> Again, there is no need to fault anyone on this: this was never the mandate of OCLC, which was originally very library-centric and existed mainly to provide *cataloging copy* for *libraries* and some other services. The need to make it open to be public happened only later. According to the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat:
> "In 2003, OCLC began the "Open WorldCat" pilot program, making abbreviated records from a subset of WorldCat available to partner Web sites and booksellers, to increase the accessibility of its member libraries' collections. In 2006, it became possible to search WorldCat directly at its website."
>
> So, Worldcat is definitely a latecomer to the newer world of information, and it must catch up, if it can at all. Expecting the world to come flocking to its door once it came online could never have been expected in reality. Will it become much more important in the future? I doubt it very seriously because it retains its library-centric focus and will probably continue to do so.
>
> Aside from this point however, there is a deeper question about the fundamental purpose of a catalog in today's environment. If even Worldcat is having trouble making a dent in the information world, what does this portend for our own local catalogs? Especially when (not if) the Google Books agreement will be ratified eventually? Perhaps even this month?!
>
> I agree that holdings of a library should be "visible to researchers," but this is becoming far more complex a task than it used to be. Just making record in the local catalog and throwing it into Worldcat is definitely not enough today. To compensate, there are many more avenues available today than ever before.
>
> I console myself with the thought that solving these problems could turn out to be one of the most fascinating eras in the history of librarianship!
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> via Pietro Roselli, 4
> 00153 Rome, Italy
> voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
> fax-011 39 06 58330992
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 10 2010 - 11:34:39 EST