https://policies-preview.oclc.org/

• Authorization:  100028264
• Password:  oclc

Be sure to enter your OCLC Institution Symbol to view your library’s directory information.

Be sure to visit OCLC’s overview of changes to the directory, which includes the link to the live directory.

found via ResourceShelf

• BookChaser Covers : compares cover images available from Amazon, Google Books, LibraryThing, and Open Library.
• BookChaser BookInfo : compares information about a book obtained from Amazon, Google Books, ISBNDB, Library of Congress, LibraryThing, Open Library, and WorldCat.
• ISBN Analysis Tool : compares x-ISBN-like service availability for a given ISBN obtained from Amazon, Google Books, LibraryThing and WorldCat.

All lookup services are by ISBN.

This conclusion to the records policy proposal is the best that could be imagined.  OCLC has listened to criticism from the greater library community, considered both the policy and it’s criticism through the efforts of the Review Board, and has responded in a way that allows everyone to move forward with a greater understanding of how best to go about updating the policy.

I suggested early on that OCLC was a tiger, instinctively defending its territory.  This still feels like a proper metaphor:  the movement towards creating a policy without proper input from the library community, and the subsequent review and withdrawing of the policy, seems more like an organization that didn’t realize the true implications of what it was putting in place, as opposed to one that was attempting a power grab to create a monopoly.

This was, and remains, a critical issue for libraries.  The ability to use the metadata representing our collections (as well as connecting them to collections and resources beyond what we own) is critical to our future ability to offer services in ways that will serve our patrons best.

I certainly hope that OCLC sets up a policy creation board similar to the review board – one that seeks a wide a range of ideas, opinion and input.  This will ensure a policy that takes a broader and more complete view of the use of cataloging records, but will also strengthen OCLC, because a membership organization is stronger when the constituent members are consistently heard and respected.  This has happened with the Review Board, and if OCLC continues to encourage it, everyone will come out ahead.

To OCLC:  You have responded well, and in the process have created an opportunity to solidify your position as a membership organization.  Keep up the good work and you will benefit, along with your members.

To the Review Board:  The report is well-written, and does an excellent job of stating what was wrong with the policy (and the process of creating the policy), as well as providing a constructive means to create a new policy that will properly reflect the needs and desires of the membership as a whole.

To detractors of the policy:  Those who offered strong, but constructive, criticism deserve recognition.  This was an emotional debate, and keeping focused on the issues at hand has ultimately won the day.  The best, and most complete, resource of commentary and information is the Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change page.

This has been an education for all involved:  the power of sustained commentary, of constructive criticism, of listening as well as talking, and of reviewing and changing positions when necessary.  Everyone should keep it up.

resources:  ResourceShelf & Disruptive Library Technology Jester

Enough theory?  How about web sites that offer lookup services that can help you find booksellers, prices, and even reviews and summaries of the books you wish to acquire?

• BookFinder – This site returns a large number of booksellers (many, many used booksellers!), although it seems odd that it doesn’t display the book’s title.
• CheckUPC.com – A good summary, and a variety of printable bar codes make this a decent site for book information.
• ISBN.nu – This is one I have used for years, and is still the one I turn to when our primary vendors don’t have a book in stock.
• ISBNdb.com – With summaries, subjects, similar items, and physical details, this site is a great resource for information about books.
• OCLC’s xISBN service – This service returns a list of related ISBNs, other editions of the book whose ISBN you append to their base URL ( http://xisbn.worldcat.org/webservices/xid/isbn/ ), in XML format.  It isn’t pretty, but when you need it, it is very helpful.
• ThingISBN – Similar to xISBN, LibraryThing provides a service where you append your ISBN to the end of their base URL ( http://www.librarything.com/api/thingISBN/ ) and get a list of related ISBNs in XML format.
• UPC Database – This site returns a large number of booksellers of the group; it also lets you know that the UPC is associated with that fictional country that so many people enjoy visiting:  Bookland.
• Wikipedia’s Book Sources – If you want a service that can give you dozens (and dozens!) of places where you can “Find This Book”, then you need to try this one.

For comparison, here are links to results for the same book (Stephen King : The Dark Tower):

• BookFinder.com
• CheckUPC.com
• ISBN.nu
• ISBNdb.com
• OCLC’s xISBN service
• ThingISBN
• UPC Database
• Wikipedia’s Book Sources

Sources and further information:

• Bibliographic Wilderness (and again)
• Comparing xISBN and ThingISBN (FRBR Blog)
• Official Web Site of The Dark Tower (The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed….)

“The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships. We share the concern, voiced by many, that the policy hinders rather than encourages innovation, and we urge the Review Board to carefully examine this issue. It is unclear that the policy has been constructed with a focus on an evolving role of OCLC in enhancing the missions of an international library community with diverse and complex interests.”

This may not seem like a strongly worded statement, but take a look at the list of consortia behind the statement (located at the bottom of the statement, linked above).  Is your library, or geographic region, represented by one or more of these?  Based on the consortia I recognize, this statement has thousands of libraries behind it.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you shall go far”, Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic statement, applies very well to this statement.

My own addition to the current state of events is that the broad-based library community needs to be strongly involved with the record use policy, especially now that OCLC has solidly entered the ILS arena with their new WorldCat functionality.  If they are able to use access and use of the records as a way to encourage/coerce/retain customers, they likely someday will.  It makes good business sense, even if it is lousy public relations.

Further reading:

blog.ecorrado.us

Thingology

Bibliographic Wilderness

Proverbial Lone Wolf Librarian

Libology is one of the first group of startup companies which will be receiving Google Ventures funding.  I have been in talks with someone from their Cambridge office over the past few weeks, just sent in the signed contract yesterday, and today the terms of the contract take effect.

The biggest change you will notice is that they requested some design changes to this blog, mainly to make it easier to integrate with other Google services.  (See below for screenshots)  If you are viewing this through a feed reader, check out the main page of this blog, or view this post.

Another change you may notice is that I will stop being critical in any way, shape or form when referring to Google or any of their partners, including OCLC.

And, of course, one must always remember what today is!

Google Style Main Page

Post Googlized

In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“  In this statement, they are correct.  If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.

In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:

“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”

To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.

BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers.  Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).

If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain.  It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.

There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine.  OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings.  OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records.  Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations.  Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.

Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.

It is, however, an interesting read, one that holds much for one to consider as events unfold over the next few months.

In addition, Tim Spaulding states that “The full report makes for enjoyable reading—outside of Dublin, Ohio anyway.”  I have read the report, and can say I found it enjoyable (in the sense of celebrating the expression of shared ideals – I hold no enjoyment that this has become a divisive issue).  I live just a few miles from Dublin, so I suspect that I will have to travel there and re-read the report to see if this statement holds true.

Or perhaps it was meant to be taken figuratively? 

He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model.  In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving.  However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.

The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.

found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki

1. OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide  community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria.
2. The policy needs to be written in a manner that can be understood and accepted by the community (e.g., as were the prior guidelines). This includes using a positive tone, a full description of Reasonable Use, and a consistent integration with FAQs that will need to be linked to, and thus incorporated in, the policy.
3. The policy statement should include explicit and specific explanation of its intent and how it carries out that intent.
4. Before a policy is implemented, member libraries need an opportunity to analyze how it impacts their operating environments, existing third-party or other agreements, and legal or regulatory environments and resolve implementation questions raised by that review. Specific issues that need more analysis and development in the current proposed policy include: its application to “data extracted from a WorldCat record,” a possible broader definition of Original Cataloging, inconsistencies between the policy and the FAQs (e.g., in allowable uses of Z39.50), the definition of “commercial” use, and the concept of binding downstream users to a separate license. The process for developing the policy with community engagement may uncover additional issues that require more analysis in order to make the policy operational.
5. The policy addressing the use and transfer of WorldCat Records should not apply to records from other OCLC services that make use of WorldCat data, such as Identities. Separate policies should be developed for these services.
6. Recognizing that the policy will be a living document applied in a changing environment, there needs to be a member-community process for ongoing periodic review of applications and interpretations of the policy, e.g., through the work of a continuing review board. Agreements (and denials of agreements) for uses of records, such as those made (or denied) for commercial use, are also integral to the interpretation of how WorldCat records should be used and transferred. Information on these agreements and decisions should be incorporated into the review process.

In essence:  a community-based organization should use community-derived methods for implementing change.

found via ResourceShelf