Libology Blog

2008 was an uncertain year for Libraryland.  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have, and we are becoming more aware of what it is we have : data and the systems to organize it.

There are some serious storm clouds on the horizon:

• The economy is in a condition which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s, and most sectors are wondering if and when we will see the bottom.  This will affect libraries in two ways : Public libraries will see rising use in ways they have only dreamed of, and all libraries will see their funding and other resources fade.  This includes lower tax revenue for publicly funded libraries, lower dollars for state-supported organizations, and fewer funds for academic libraries as enrollment drops and higher education struggles to make ends meet.  These effects will be delayed somewhat, so there is time to prepare.
• Organizations and companies have finally discovered the value of data and other stored information.  The movement towards openness is being countered by a tightening of control.  Google Books, OCLC, and a variety of publishers are attempting to control access and use of what they have stored in their systems, sometimes even from the creators of the data/information.
• Costs for software, services and access are still driving upward at a rate that is unsustainable in the current economy.  Book publishers are already cutting back on the number of new authors they take a risk in publishing; journal subscriptions are still all over the place, with some titles having exorbitant rates, and others being published Open Access; software and service contracts are expensive, with the added stress and cost of switching to other systems keeping many from exploring other options.

What can libraries do?  Re-read the opening paragraph:  Ideas and tools abound for how we can do more with what we have.  Each library should look at their environment and evaluate what they can do differently.  Every service you offer should be examined for changes that will cost less and perhaps even offer more.  A few examples:

• On a larger scale:  what do you pay, in real dollars for your Integrated Library System (ILS), assuming you have one?  What would it cost you in staff time and money to switch to an open source alternative?  Companies are out there that offer support packages; I suspect that many libraries could offer much more with fewer resources in this area.  If you don’t currently have one, this may be a great time to begin that project.
• Do you offer laptop computers for checkout?  For staff use?  How much did each of them cost?  How much would be saved by selecting netbooks during their replacement schedule?  Perhaps you could even get two netbooks for less than the cost of each notebook.  This won’t work if higher-level software is needed (such as Photoshop), but most of a notebook’s use is in the realm of office software and internet use, which are the netbook’s bread and butter.
• Hire and retain people with tech savvy and curiousity, and give them the time and resources to experiment with new services and technology.  Do you really need to spend thousands of dollars to display book covers on your OPAC?  Is the cost of an OPAC upgrade preventing you from implementing one?  Can you add social networking features (reviews, recommendations, etc.) without wondering where the money will come from?  The answers may surprise you.  $100 and 100 hours of staff time can give you options for all of the above in a small-to-mid-sized library, if you have the environment to let it happen.

It is generally understood that new business opportunities are created in economic downturns, and that it is a great environment for a small company with an understanding of what the public wants.  The same goes for libraries and library organizations.  When everyone else is looking to protect what they already have (while spending lots of money in the process), those who develop new, inexpensive ideas are poised to suceed.  In libraryspeak : serve your patrons better for less money, and become the library you have dreamed of.  Your best opportunity may in fact exist now.

one of the links found via Open Access News

I wrote a recommendation, on request, about the impact to my workplace of the OCLC license policy changes that are scheduled to start in February.  I am posting an exerpt here, not because I feel it brings anything new to the debate or that I feel it is a solution for libraries in general, but because it is an example of how I am applying what I think and feel about an issue to our real-life situation.

Note that I do not set policy for my library, and do not feel that my suggestions are the end-all be-all of what we should do, and I certainly am not stating any of this as anything but my own opinion.  I view my role as putting ideas into the discussion with the hope of achieving what is right for us as a library and for everyone involved through collaboration and debate.  In that spirit, I decided to post part of what I wrote:

I have been following this debate with a fair amount of interest, and there are actually a couple of answers to your query:

1) In the near-term, the OCLC licensing policy changes do not have a direct impact on what we do or how we do it.  One of the first changes they made in response to library bloggers (and perhaps others who responded via other channels) was to make the retention and/or addition of the license link into the 996 field, as well as retaining the OCLC number, a request rather than a requirement.

This makes the cataloging and other MARC-related activities relatively unchanged, although I have a recommendation in regards to this, which is located below.

2) In the longer view, the OCLC licensing policy changes has the potential, if OCLC is able to successfully defend them legally, to create problems for us and many other libraries.  One result of this is that services such as OpenLibrary (22 million records - http://www.openlibrary.org/ ), LibraryThing ( http://www.librarything.com/ ), and the brand-new biblios.net ( http://www.biblios.net/ ) would all have to obtain OCLC’s permission for any records that have passed through WorldCat, regardless of actual ownership (likely the creating institution) or copyright status (data in the records, like Major League Baseball statistics, are considered public domain - though this has never been tested for MARC records).

More chilling is the possibility that any service that duplicates an OCLC service, and that uses records that have passed through WorldCat, must obtain permission.  I see this as an issue for any union catalog such as OhioLink ( http://www.ohiolink.edu/ ), Georgia Pines ( http://gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml ), etc.  This specific clause seems to have been removed from the latest version of the license, but seems to be implied throughout the document.

However, one aspect of the license is that the records do not fall under the license that exists at the time they were uploaded to WorldCat, but fall under whatever the current form of the license happens to be.  OCLC is the sole arbiter for the contents of the license and can change it whenever and however it sees fit, with the changes affecting all records and all users of those records instantaneously.  This is not a nice situation for a co-operative membership organization.

My recommendations:

1) When the 996 field begins to be used in February, we should delete the license link from every record we import; we should resist adding the field to any of our existing records as well.  [Our cataloger] assures me that this process will fit into our current cataloging process very well and will not add any appreciable time or effort to our cataloging.  This will allow us to continue with the same status of our records and allow us to see where this will lead (i.e. changes to the policy, legal challenges, effects of other players in the library world, etc.).  OCLC may very well change the “request” back to “requirement” at some point in the future; we can re-evaluate it then.

2) We should examine ways to make it known to OCLC that they are the best at what they do, and that any organization that would replicate them at their scale would still face many of the same issues they are facing.  OCLC is defending its territory, a reasonable thing for any organization to do.  However, they are acting very “defensively” in regards to the license policy, and we would be much better served by their focusing on making their services so comprehensive and quality-driven that we have no desire to look elsewhere.  OCLCs acting defensively has inspired many people to examine their options, and this may signal the beginning of a new effort to create record depositories outside of WorldCat.  Encouraging OCLC to be more “open” will actually strengthen them as an organization, while at the same time improve everyone’s interactions with them.  Defensive legal positions will only serve to alienate their users.  OCLC needs to understand all of this in order to continue their dominant role; it is in our best interest to help them to understand this.

3) We should investigate and determine the ways in which the newer, open services can benefit us, and how we may benefit them (including our providing records).  At the very least, the competition will encourage OCLC to be more open, and may help to reduce our payments (or at least reduce the increase in payments) to OCLC in the future.

I will stress that much of what appears above contains my opinions and attitudes; I have mixed feelings about OCLC (as I do for any tiger defending its territory, or any 800-pound gorilla) and earnestly hope that they open up their services and records in a way that will be beneficial to everyone involved.

Another installment in the exploration of the effects of OCLC’s licensing policy changes, this one an examination of various Federal Library records by Thingology’s Tim Spaulding.

The Elusive Moose and OCLC is a post over at LibraryThing’s Thingology blog that is yet another good effort at explaining why the new OCLC records license is not a good thing for anyone (including, in the long run, OCLC, in my opinion).

A Useful Amplification of Records That Are Unavoidably Needed Anyway is an essay by Brett Bonfield which, dare I phrase it this way, usefully amplifies several of the major web-based entities which are intertwined with libraries.  These include (but aren’t limited to) OCLC’s WorldCat, Amazon, and LibraryThing.  Brett clearly understands libraries, and does a great job detailing the interrelationships between all involved.

Not directly related to the essay, LibraryThing has posted an expansion of their Common Knowledge fields for Authors and Events.  This is an interesting read, as it addresses in a real-world way the need for authorities and relationships.

Over the past few days, I have been gathering my thoughts together in order to post an essay-style overview of the issues surrounding the OCLC records policy changes.  As of now, I am going to put those thoughts aside, as Stefano Mazzocchi has posted an excellently rational and well thought-out essay on the topic.

I feel glad that I have injected some of the points he mentions into my own posts.  OCLC is a tiger (my own reference) defending its territory; this means they feel threatened.  Stefano described how OCLC can become the lady, opening up their process and becoming a hero to librarians, bibliophiles, and geeks worldwide.

Can they take a cue from the Open Source movement and adjust their business model to better fit their actual position in the biblioverse?  Stefano is hesitant about their chances; I have a lot of respect for many of the people and projects at OCLC, and feel that they can achieve nearly anything the set their collective minds towards (except to maintain a monopoly on the course they seem to have chosen).

found via Librarian.net

The debate about OCLC’s revision of their Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is heating up.  The core issue appears to be the licensing of WorldCat records and the limitations imposed, namely that “data extracted from a WorldCat Record” cannot be used in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat”.

Aaron Swartz, with the Open Library project, has posted a really interesting overview of OCLC, although his intro suggests that he feels that the 800 pound gorilla comparison is closer to the mark.  He followed up with quotes from and comments about Karen Calhoun’s post to OCLC members comment from his first post (thanks for setting this straight, Aaron!) He did not have a link to Karen’s post, and I wasn’t able to locate it via a search.

There is a podcast on Panlibus of Karen Calhoun and Roy Tennant discussing the policy.  I haven’t had a chance to listen yet.

Karen did post comments on November 4th on OCLC’s Metalogue blog.  Read the comments, especially Jonathan Rochkind’s (Nov 5, 1:41 p.m.); then check out his own blog posts on the topic (I would link to individual posts, but there are quite a few, and they are all worth reading — scroll back to November 3rd and read forward).

I am still fairly certain that OCLC is taking on the tiger’s role:  territorial and instinctive.  The more thought I give to it, however, the stronger the argument for opening the records and information becomes:  the data doesn’t belong to anyone (and if it did, it would belong to the libraries that created it in the first place) and OCLC is playing a losing game if it insists on full ownership and control.

As an accompaniment to this and this, I am including the text of OCLC’s proposed policy which was posted briefly yesterday before being removed and replaced with “We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.”

Debate and discussion are healthy, especially in world of libraries.  Understanding why this policy was proposed, and why it bothers some people, is critical to the understanding of who we are and where we are going.

The text located within this post has been copied from http://marc.coffeecode.net/oclc_2008_11_02/.  I did not see OCLC’s page, and cannot guarantee that it is unchanged.  I have no reason to believe that it isn’t what existed on OCLC’s site on Sunday.

Much of what is contained here is fair and reasonable; at issue, I believe, is the concept of controlling the data contained within OCLC records through licensing.  I feel that the removal of the policy from their website is a signal that OCLC is truly attempting to do what is right for all involved, and that they can craft a policy that will express that.  This is not the 800 pound gorilla that will get it’s way no matter what, but a tiger whose instinct is to protect its territory.  We should respect that territory, while at the same time respecting our own rights to the data at issue.

The text of the since-removed policy:

———————————————————————————————-

Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records

The Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records have been updated to become the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. The policy is scheduled to become effective mid-February 2009, to give OCLC member libraries and other organizations time to implement any changes resulting from the update. Until that time, the Guidelines will remain in effect.
Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records
A. Intent of the Policy

OCLC® encourages and supports the widespread, non-commercial use of WorldCat Records (as defined below) for scholarship and research in furtherance of innovation that complements OCLC’s products and services for the benefit of libraries, museums, archives and other cultural heritage institutions and their respective patrons by

1. promoting the evolution of libraries, archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions, the use of their collections and the advancement of their professions;
2. increasing availability of library, archive, museum and other cultural heritage institution resources to individual users; and/or
3. furthering ease of access to and use of world-wide scientific, literary and educational knowledge and information.

This “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records” is designed to foster such use while protecting the rights of OCLC’s membership and its investment in WorldCat, and ensuring that the use of WorldCat Records hereunder provides a benefit to the OCLC membership. Benefit to the OCLC membership may take the form of reciprocal linking, metadata, remuneration, services-in-kind or other negotiated value. This Policy governs all Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records unless a separate written agreement is made with OCLC. Please read the entire Policy and the documents incorporated herein by reference to ensure full understanding of the Policy.

This Policy covers WorldCat Records as defined below. This Policy may also govern the Use and Transfer of WorldCat bibliographic data available through other services to the extent determined by OCLC. Please check the FAQ regularly for the applicability of this Policy to other services.
B. Definitions

1. “Policy” means this “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records”, as modified by OCLC from time to time.
2. “WorldCat” is the OCLC online union catalog, an electronic database of bibliographic records and other information maintained by OCLC;
3. A “WorldCat Record” is a bibliographic record meeting one or more of the following criteria unless otherwise specified by this Policy:
1. a bibliographic record obtained directly from WorldCat through the use of an OCLC product or service; or
2. a bibliographic record (i) identified as Derived from WorldCat by the party from which the WorldCat Record is received; or (ii) which is otherwise known by the recipient to have been Derived from WorldCat at any time prior to receipt. Please see the FAQ for information on fields, subfields and other factors that can indicate whether a bibliographic record has been Derived from WorldCat.

The Use and Transfer of data extracted from a WorldCat Record is subject to this Policy whether or not the extracted data itself meets one or more of the criteria described in this Section B.3 and shall be included within the term “WorldCat Record”.
An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record.
4. A bibliographic record in WorldCat is designated as the “Original Cataloging” of the agency represented in the OCLC MARC 040 field, subfield a (original cataloging agency).
5. The “FAQ” is the Frequently Asked Questions document providing more information regarding this Policy, as updated by OCLC from time to time, which is located at: http://purl.org/oclc/wcrup-faq.
6. An “OCLC Member” is an organization that is listed on OCLC’s membership roster as a Governing Member or Member of OCLC.
7. A “Non-OCLC Member” is any party (including an individual) who is not an OCLC Member.
8. A bibliographic record is “Derived” from WorldCat if it was copied or otherwise obtained from WorldCat at any time prior to receipt.
9. “Use” means use in accordance with the requirements and intent of this Policy without making a Transfer to another person or organization.
10. “Non-Commercial Use” means Use for the purposes of research, teaching, scholarship or private study provided such use is not Commercial Use.
11. “Commercial Use” means Use in any manner that supports, is intended for or directed toward or results in commercial advantage or monetary compensation, including, without limitation, any sale of WorldCat Records.
12. “Reasonable Use” means Use of WorldCat Records that is reasonable for the intended Non-Commercial Use and consistent with the intent of this Policy. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “Reasonable Use” does not include any Use of WorldCat Records that:
1. discourages the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat, thus damaging OCLC Members’ investment in WorldCat, and/or
2. substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat, for example for the purpose of providing cataloging services to libraries or other organizations. Please see the FAQ for a discussion of Z39.50 for cataloging using WorldCat-derived bibliographic records.
13. “Transfer” means conveyance to another OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member by exchange, merger, sharing, gift, providing the capability to download or otherwise electronically copy or any other means.
14. “Commercial Transfer” means Transfer of WorldCat Records for Commercial Use by the recipient.
15. “Holdings” means OCLC institution symbols attached to a record, indicating libraries that own, license or otherwise provide access to the item described by the record. An OCLC institution symbol is a unique identifier assigned by OCLC to Members.
16. “WorldCat Record Use Form” means the form prescribed by OCLC for purposes of contacting OCLC with proposals for Use and/or Transfer of WorldCat Records which are not authorized by this Policy. The WorldCat Record Use Form is located at: http://purl.org/oclc/wcrup-form.

C. Use of WorldCat Records

1. Each OCLC Member and Non-OCLC Member may Use WorldCat Records in accordance with this Policy.
2. Subject to the restrictions set forth in this Policy, OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members are granted the non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free right to:
1. reproduce WorldCat Records, incorporate WorldCat Records into works and base works on WorldCat Records; and
2. display WorldCat Records, works incorporating WorldCat Records and works based on WorldCat Records;
for Non-Commercial Use.
3. The following restrictions apply to Use of WorldCat Records:
1. Reasonable Use. Use of WorldCat Records authorized by this Policy is limited to Reasonable Use except as otherwise authorized by written agreement with OCLC.
2. Commercial Use Prohibited. Commercial Use of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party wishing to make such Use. [OCLC has a standard agreement available which authorizes the processing (for a fee) of WorldCat Records received from OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members.] The WorldCat Record Use Form should be used to initiate discussions with OCLC regarding an agreement authorizing Commercial Use of WorldCat Records. OCLC may refuse to authorize Commercial Use of WorldCat Records, without liability, in its sole discretion.

D. Transfer of WorldCat Records

1.
1. Subject to the restrictions set forth in this Policy, an OCLC Member may Transfer WorldCat Records of its own Holdings to other OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members for Use in accordance with this Policy.
2. A Non-OCLC Member may Transfer WorldCat Records of its own Holdings to OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members under separate agreement with OCLC. The Non-OCLC Member wishing to make such a Transfer must submit a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC for approval of the proposed Transfer. OCLC’s approval of the Transfer described in the WorldCat Record Use Form: (i) must be in writing; (ii) may be conditioned upon agreement to additional terms and conditions determined by OCLC; and (iii) may be withheld by OCLC, without liability, within its sole discretion.
2. The following restrictions apply to Transfer of WorldCat Records:
1. Attribution. WorldCat and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. must be clearly identified as the source of WorldCat Records Transferred. Please see the FAQ for information about appropriate attribution of WorldCat and OCLC.
2. Modification Restriction. The OCLC number (if any), the link to this Policy and any additional means of attribution (besides the link to this Policy) may not be removed from any WorldCat Record.
3. Commercial Transfer Prohibited. Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party that will receive the WorldCat Records. The WorldCat Record Use Form should be used to initiate discussions with OCLC regarding an agreement authorizing Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records. OCLC may refuse to authorize Commercial Transfer of WorldCat Records, without liability, in its sole discretion.
4. Copy of Policy. If an OCLC Member Transfers WorldCat Records of its own Holdings under Section D.1.a above, the OCLC Member will provide the party receiving the WorldCat Records with a copy of this Policy (or a link by which this Policy may be accessed) and indicate that Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is permitted only in accordance with the Policy.
3. The Transfer of WorldCat Records by an OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member which do not represent its own Holdings requires submission of a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC for approval of the proposed Transfer. OCLC’s approval of the Transfer described in the WorldCat Record Use Form: (i) must be in writing; (ii) may be conditioned upon agreement to additional terms and conditions determined by OCLC; and (iii) may be withheld by OCLC, without liability, within its sole discretion.
4. WorldCat Records, a work incorporating WorldCat Records or a work based on WorldCat Records which are Transferred may be Used by the recipient only under the terms of this Policy. Additional or different terms may not be imposed. Any link to this Policy in a WorldCat Record that is Transferred may not be removed, hidden, deactivated or obscured.

E. Additional Provisions

1. The rights to Use and Transfer WorldCat Records afforded by this Policy shall automatically terminate upon any breach of the terms of this Policy. The OCLC Member(s) and/or Non-OCLC Member(s) involved in any breach of this Policy shall provide such assistance as is reasonably requested by OCLC to remedy the breach.
2. WORLDCAT RECORDS ARE PROVIDED AND/OR MADE AVAILABLE “AS IS”. NEITHER THE ORIGINAL CATALOGING LIBRARY NOR OCLC WARRANTS THE COMPLETENESS OF WORLDCAT RECORDS.
3. Neither this Policy nor the transactions contemplated herein serve to transfer any ownership right or interest in or to WorldCat or WorldCat Records, including, without limitation, the intellectual property rights therein.
4. When an organization makes bibliographic information available to OCLC which is subject to Use or Transfer restrictions which are different than those set forth in this Policy, and OCLC nevertheless elects to accept the information for addition to WorldCat, OCLC will inform OCLC Members and Non-OCLC Members of the restrictions, and the rights to Use and Transfer such information will be subject to such restrictions.
5. Regardless of the source from which WorldCat Records are received, Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is authorized solely by OCLC pursuant to this Policy. Accordingly, this Policy constitutes a direct contractual relationship between OCLC and the party obtaining WorldCat Records, and may be enforced by OCLC directly against such party.
6. OCLC has the sole discretion to determine whether any Use and/or Transfer of WorldCat Records complies with this Policy. In the event OCLC identifies a Use and/or Transfer which does not comply with this Policy, OCLC shall notify the relevant OCLC Member(s) and/or Non-OCLC Member(s) and such parties agree to work with OCLC to resolve the noncompliance.
7. This Policy is the final, complete and exclusive statement of the agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Once applicable to a given Use or Transfer of WorldCat Records, no provision of this Policy may be changed, modified or supplemented except in a written document signed by the parties. OCLC may issue a modified version of this Policy or a substitute for this Policy at any time and the modified or substitute version will apply to any Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records after the date of issuance (or other effective date specified by OCLC).
8. If any provision of this Policy is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this Policy, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. No term or provision of this Policy shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
9. This Policy shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio and the United States of America, without regard to principles of conflict of laws, except (i) as otherwise provided in a separate agreement with OCLC which incorporates this Policy; or (ii) as otherwise required by applicable law.

OCLC released their updated Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records yesterday, with implementation scheduled for mid-February.  If you see the phrase

We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.

then you might suspect that it created quite a fuss.  It did, and OCLC responded by removing the policy from their web site.

Someone saved a copy of the web page; I will include the text of the policy in the next post.

The core criticism of the policy changes seem to revolve around the licensing of the records.  OCLC planned to include a license statement in a 996 field (from Terry’s Worklog):

996 $aOCLCWCRUP $iUse and transfer of this record is governed by the OCLC® Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records.
$uhttp://purl.org/oclc/wcrup

Limits would include use of the records in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat, for example for the purpose of providing cataloging services to libraries or other organizations.”  Cataloging services aside, how large does a union catalog have to be before it replicates the function of WorldCat, namely finding a library that owns a particular book?  Ohio’s Ohiolink sized?  Illinois’ I-Share sized?  Georgia’s Pines sized?

What about the OpenLibrary project?  Or LibraryThing?  Using information derived from an OCLC record without including the OCLC number and other OCLC references (like the above statement) would violate their terms, as I read them.  However, the last time I checked, the data itself is not covered under copyright and should be able to be extracted and expressed in creative ways (as long as OCLC’s creative way of expressing the data is not infringed).

We need to recognize the difference between the data held in these records and the expression of that data.  To enter into license agreements that suggest that we cannot recognize the data separate from the expression goes against core library principles.  This feels, in some ways, like the Major League Baseball statistics copyright battle from a few years back, in which the idea of the data itself being public domain was upheld.

One final note:  keep in mind the who and how behind the creation of these records.  We create them.  OCLC gathers them, disseminates them, and puts them to mostly good use.  If OCLC didn’t exist, there would be a need for some organization with a similar purpose.  They are not evil, they are not out to get us; they are, however, overreaching at times.

originally found via Thingology

It is all rumor at this point, but apparently OCLC will be making an announcement on November 2nd regarding its record use policy, and that using any OCLC records services (including WorldCat?) will imply acceptance of said policy.

Some people are worried about the services they have built around OCLC’s records; others feel that the policy may expand the application of the records; most are waiting and seeing.

Many libraries, including my own place of work, have integrated OCLC services into the OPAC and have a significant number of OCLC provided (not necessarily created) MARC records.

So we wait and see… will it be the lady or the tiger, or simply the 800 pound (mostly benevolent) gorilla of of the library jungle we have come to know so well?

Sources / further reading:

Next Generation Cataloging for Libraries (Ngc4Lib) list

Thingology Blog

Panlibus Blog

—————————-

Update:  I hadn’t noticed a communication in the comments section of the Thingology Blog from Karen Calhoun, OCLC’s Vice President of WorldCat and Metadata Services, regarding this news.  She stresses that it is simply their updating of their 20+ year-old policy to reflect the expanded opportunities for the use of OCLC records.  So, depending on the actual language of the changes, this seems to be the lady, or at worst an 800 pound lady gorilla.  This may go down as an example, both for good and bad, of the rapidity of communication in the blogosphere.

Thanks to Karen for quickly stepping in, and to Mark Barnes for posting her statement as a comment.

So… how will this affect us?  Wait and see, with patience.

The 2008 ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) survey has been released, and they have added a section on social networking (pdf version of chapter here).  Among the findings:

• Slightly over 85% of those surveyed use social networks, with Facebook and MySpace topping the list.
• Younger students (under 30) tended to use Facebook, while older ones tend towards MySpace.
• About 50% use social networking for discussing classwork with other students; only about 5% use it for discussing classwork with instructors.

The only one of these three that surprised me was the tendancy towards Facebook/MySpace by age.  I have thought of MySpace as appealing to younger users than Facebook.

Social networks are definitely here to stay.  In five years we may not be discussing Facebook or MySpace (because they might have been superceded by a yet un-created network), but people will be more interconnected, not less.

The third point is one that should make us take notice.  Half of the surveyed students have used social networks to discuss classwork; the main reason they haven’t discussed it with instructors (and by extension, the library folk) is that we view it as some sort of cyber malt shop, a place only for their peers.

If we make ourselves available on social networks, we aren’t going to find ourselves becoming an overnight sensation.  We will, however, give people one more way to view us as being there to assist them.

Whether we create OPAC search tools to embed (or even highlight the good ones that exist, like WorldCat and CiteMe in Facebook - also here), create an institutional identity, or just make ourselves more visible as individuals, there is much we can do to assist students and promote our services.

We can jump on board the trolley, or be left behind.  The choice is ours, both individually and collectively.  I am on Facebook and LinkedIn, btw… and you should be too.

found via Web4Lib — thanks Gerry McKiernan!

Lorcan Demsey has a post on metadata that does a great job of illustrating two types of data collections by describing them as lakes and rivers.  The idea did not originate with him; rather he encountered it via OCLC’s Eric Hellman.

• Lakes are repositories of information that change little over time, and are fed from a few well-defined sources, supplemented by occasional “springs”.  A good analog for this is the library catalog.
• Rivers are cascading flows of information, changing rapidly and fed by many sources.  The quote that describes this most effectively is often attributed to Heraclitus : “you cannot step into the same river twice.”*

This is a fantastic way to frame the ongoing transition that libraries face.  We are transforming ourselves (being forced to transform?  some combination of the two?) from a lake-based information service to a river-based information service.  We are having to learn as we go to navigage ever-changing waterways, dodging sandbars and debris in a boat that was designed over a century ago for lake use.

Keep this analogy in mind… it lends itself well.

* Wikipedia offers the following quote listed within their page on Heraclitus: “We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.” This quote is simultaneously much more illustrative of the complexity of our situation, and much more confusing.

Classify is a new service from OCLC which returns class numbers (Dewey, LC, and National Library of Medicine) assigned to books in WorldCat. This could be a good way to use the “wisdom of the crowd” when you are not 100% sure where to group a particular book.

I noticed that the url had a “2″ at the end, so I removed it to see what would happen. It appears to be an earlier version of the service. I didn’t have any luck with the first few ISBNs I entered, but the example links work well.

Any other changes to the url bounce the user to the DeweyBrowser, which is a lookup service from a couple of years back. Although it also has a “2″ at the end of the url, nothing happens when one changes it. So much for rewarding curiosity

Classify found via Lorcan Dempsey’s weblog

OCLC: A Review (PDF here) is the title of an essay by Jeffrey Beall that is included in a book titled Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front.

First, let me reiterate my own attitude about OCLC: They are, for good and for bad, the 800 pound gorilla of the library world. Decisions that they make, and the approach they take towards librarianship, effect us dramatically, and there is not much that we can individually do about it.

They have done great things, from WorldCat.org to providing as complete a set of bibliographic records as exists in the world. Among the negatives are the cost barriers that can eat away much of the budget of smaller libraries, as well as the one-way trip that bibliographic information seems to make into their system.

This article, however, is a strong attack on OCLC that simply overreaches. Many of the projects run by OCLC, including WorldCat, have benefitted from their monolithic approach, and while I would much prefer to see them be more open and flexible, I still appreciate their scope and vision.

One example of the style of his argument: He opens the article with criticism for the title of Karen Schneider’s posts on ALA TechSource (”How OPACs Suck” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)). He states that her title is “specious, of course” because “they have quietly and efficiently been linking researchers and others with desired information for about twenty years.” He does not address the main concerns of the posts, which is how library search tools have fallen behind, and that the search capabilities that people have grown to expect are lacking in many of the major ILS OPACs.

It would be interesting to see an article that addressed each of her points in detail, explaining how the results she retrieved from various libraries in Part 1 are both valid and desired. What we get is his calling the TechSource editor “spineless” for allowing “such rubbish to be published”.

Near the end of the essay he also takes on Lorcan Dempsey, OCLC Chief Strategist and Vice President of Research. Again, he doesn’t quote, doesn’t give specifics, and doesn’t keep it on an opinion level:

“Have you ever tried reading one of his articles? They are some of the most incoherent and desultory articles in the history of information.”

“…of course, has a blog. He lives for new technology. It seems as if he thinks that any new library or information technology is automatically better than the technology that predates it and it must be implemented immediately, especially if OCLC has a hand in it.”

I use these two examples because I have been reading Karen and Lorcan’s blogs for some time. I saw Lorcan Dempsey present at the Ohio State University Library 2.0 Seminar last year. I can vouch that they have substance behind what they write, and that they are well worth reading. His blanket portrayal of OCLC as existing only to “separate libraries from their money” reminds me of a library director I met who once referred to the OCLC logo as a “swastika”.

And so, about this essay? Read it and recognize that there are some very valid criticisms contained within. Some of these are criticisms that I have expressed over the years. However, beware the hyperbole and the personal nature of his criticism, for they strongly overshadow that which is worth stating.

found via ResourceShelf

OCLC and Google are exchanging parts of their data in a way that will likely change the way we view full-text scanned books:

• Google is providing linking information to OCLC in order to make Google Book Search items discoverable through WorldCat.
• OCLC is providing their cataloging records via libraries who are members of the Google Book Project in order to enhance Google Book Search, primarily by linking directly to WorldCat records.

I doubt that it will be long before this will be able to be used to enhance library OPACS.

found via ResourceShelf

(and the post title refers to this commercial)

Go to WorldCat and type in a search.  The results contain books, video, audio, you name it.  One of the more recent additions is the Digital Images Collections, which can be wonderful to view.  How to find them, though?

Type in your search terms, then add cntnt (”Content” without the vowels) as an additional term (which acts as a limit).  Viola!

Try chicago cubs cntnt

Try airplanes cntnt

Try carnegie libraries cntnt

You get the idea…

found via the WorldCat blog

ILS Basic Discovery Interfaces, a.k.a the Berkeley Accord

In what may turn out to be a historically significant event in the history of library tech, a group called the ILS Discovery Task Force has generated an outline detailing what amounts to an Application Programming Interface (API) for the library OPAC. They are calling this the Berkeley Accord. Not only have they hashed out the basic understanding, but the following companies/organizations have undersigned the document:

1. Talis
2. Ex Libris
3. LibLime
4. BiblioCommons
5. SirsiDynix
6. Polaris Library Systems
7. VTLS
8. California Digital Library
9. OCLC
10. AquaBrowser

What does this mean? This means that sometime in the hopefully not-too-distant future, someone can create an online search tool and know that it will work with OPACs from many different ILSs. Much like browsing the web is a similar experience with Internet Explorer 7, or Opera 9, or Firefox 3 (because they use a shared understanding of how to display the html and css found on the web) searching various libraries using the same interface (because they use a shared understanding of how to access the information in the ILS) can make research more effective for everyone.

If this is realized, it will make our jobs easier, our patrons happier, and the institution of the library more powerful and effective. It can be a “win” for everyone who recognizes that the future is dependent on advancing search technology and interoperability.

Of note is the lone abstention: Innovative Interfaces, Inc (III). They indicate that while they agree with the general principles, they cannot offer their support until much greater detail is known about the framework. My initial thought is to question this: if you feel that this is a good foundation, then agree to it and work to build upon it. If there are flaws, express them and work to build support on an improved foundation. What comes to mind is a zen koan:

“When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all, don’t wobble.”

found via a posting on NGC4lib (Next Generation Catalog for Libraries) by Eric Leese Morgan

BookChaser Editions Lookup is an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) lookup service with a twist : it obtains information from the amazingISBN, thingISBN and xISBN services and displays them, all for the purpose of letting the user compare and contrast different editions of the book entered.  Think of it as a meta-ISBN service.

Try it with Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

This can be a great way to locate audiobooks, foreign language editions, and other forms of a book that might not easily be found otherwise.

found via ResourceShelf

Here are some interesting statistics regarding MARC tag usage in WorldCat records, according to Karen Smith-Yoshimura at OCLC’s RLG Programs:

• Only 27 tags are used in more than 10% of WorldCat records.
• 52 tags are are used in 1% to 9% of WorldCat records.
• The remaining 147 tags show up in less than 1% of the records.

She wonders if some of these tags might not be necessary.  I just wonder if we would do better to have a hierarchy involved… have a few basic top-level tags, and let catalogers go nuts filling in detail on the nested levels.

Karen’s post appeared on HangingTogether.org

Lorcan Dempsey of OCLC has a great post that differentiates Web 2.0 (and by doing so, Library 2.0) into two types of applications, those that diffuse information to users, and those that concentrate information from users.

I won’t go into more detail, because you should just read what he has to say.