A List Apart has been a steady source of thought-provoking inspiration over the years, not only from a website building perspective, but also because much of what they publish crosses boundaries and impacts other projects and interests in my life.

Their current article, Accent Folding, greatly impacts library data in general, and library catalogs in particular.  It deals with the issue of Unicode and pattern recognition, namely how one creates search tools that allow for variations in how words containing accents, stress marks, and other non-ascii characters.  The most succinct example:

There is no excuse for your software to play dumb when the user types “cafe” instead of “café.”

The article presents methods of “normalizing” text to allow for proper matching, and should be read by anyone who gets to deal with library data for reports and searching aids.  If you know how to use regular expressions, you will likely be in for a treat.

The other example they present, this time to demonstrate the limitations of accent folding, uses Japanese to illustrate just how differently the same data can be presented:

These four sentences all say “Children like to watch television” in Japanese:

• Kanji: 子供はテレビを見るのが好きです。
• Hiragana: こども は てれび を みる の が すき です 。
• Romaji: kodomo wa terebi o miru noga suki desu.
• Cyrillic: кодомо ва тэрэби о миру нога суки дэсу.

Even if you don’t end up applying this directly to your work, the information in this article will help your appreciation for the challenges contained within your data, and how tough it can be to make it “just work” sometimes.

I see these types of messages all the time on library-related websites, and I agree that it sends the message that those who manage those sites don’t have a good grasp of current web technology:

Time to Update? by David Lee King.

Check the web sites that your library presents to the world.  If you see messages like those highlighted by David, start talking to people about getting them up to date (or better yet, getting rid of them, since a good standards-designed site will work well across browsers and browser versions).

How College Students Seek Information in the Digital Age (pdf) is a report from Project Information Literacy, maintained by the Information School at the University of Washington that contains a few surprises for libraries:

• Course readings were the first place most students turn to for course-related research (97%).
• Over 80% of students used library-provided research databases.
• Usage of library offering (research databases, OPAC, print materials, and study areas) were all above 50%.

Now the not so good:

• All interactive library research (talk to a librarian, attend a training session, use chat, e-mail or other online “Ask A Librarian” service) fell below 25%.
• Students are missing out on potential resources (including library research assistance), simply because those resources are not within their range of research activity.

Where are students going for assistance?  They tend to go to their instructors for guidance and assistance, but otherwise they simply use the resources they already know about, or discover in the course of their research.

What might this mean for libraries?  We should push for better interaction with instructors, so that they will be more likely to understand the full range of resources available for students to use, and will be more likely to refer students to an interactive library resource (which was only done 26% of the time — and the only result on the survey below 60%).

We also should examine our online presence.  How does it present research resources?  Will someone looking for a particular type of information be able to locate all the resources that the library has to offer?  Print and online library guides for these activities can also be very beneficial.

This report should be read, and reviewed, with each of our libraries in mind.  By understanding that the people we interact with are only one-fourth of the population using our resources, we can begin to re-focus our efforts to ensure that what we have to offer will be used effectively.

found via Bill Drew, who found it via the Free Range Librarian

Jenny Levine makes a great case on The Shifted Librarian for adding a feature to your sites that allows users to easily share your content via social networks.  Not only will this offer a way for your users to help spread the work about services and activities that you offer, but it can help them keep track of information they find so that they can revisit it later.  This will be a benefit for users of mobile browsers, which are rapidly becoming a more significant portion of visitors to our web sites.

You may notice that I have followed her advice and have added the Add to Any service to this blog, visible at the bottom of every post (and checked to ensure it validates against XHTML and CSS standards, of course; a requirement I have for any add-on).

With our increasing reliance on electronic record keeping, especially online records, it makes a lot of sense to consider the use of virtual bookplates for those items which would normally have a printed label affixed within the book:

• An item with a Virtual Bookplate from the University of Florida Smathers Libraries, which utilizes an 856 MARC field link to the virtual bookplate.
• A search box on their Donor web page gives donors (and others) an easy way to locate the donated items.
• The virtual bookplate for the item.
• A presentation on Slideshare (14 slides) providing an overview of their process.

This strikes me as an especially effective way to both recognize and promote donors.  The only real technical requirements are graphics software to create and edit the bookplate design, and the web space to store the finished graphics.  Neither should be a problem for any library willing to spend the time required to get the project rolling.

The people who created the above-linked presentation are conducting a survey on library practices on bookplates.

found via AcqNet-L

May All Your Standards Be Simple and Evolvable is a post by John Wilbanks on Science Blog’s Common Knowledge.  It is written with medical data standards in mind, but it could be discussing the state of library data as well:

“…TCP/IP, created simply to move bits between computers, begat a variety of new protocols like FTP, Gopher, Finger, many other protocols that layered atop the basic bits standard. Complexity from simplicity. Attempting to embed file transfer into the bits protocol would have made this whole process a lot harder.”

We are approaching a point in which we will be moving our data out of the cumbersome and outdated MARC format.  It will happen, regardless of the heel-dragging that has been taking place for over 10 years.  The debate is still heated over what we will replace the standard with.

Can we come up with something simple and evolvable?  I define this as being able to build things out of data without having to break the it up into usable chunks.  Have you looked at a MARC (.mrc) record with a text editor?  There is no easy way to determine what much of the data means, and the entire record is one string of information.  You can usually pick out the title, author and a few other things, but mostly it looks like gobbledygook.

If our data were in nice, small, understandable pieces to begin with, with straightforward rules guiding how it was formatted, it would invite innovation and creative use.  We are only hindering ourselves with the complexity and arcane rules; simplicity would serve everyone’s needs far better.

Brett Bonfield has a great post, actually more of a long essay or article, on open source library software projects.  W-E-B-S-I-T-E, Find Out What It Means To Me (great title, but certainly more limited than the post’s topic) covers a wide range of software, the reasons people use (or don’t use) them, and the status of several of the larger projects that currently exist.

There is a lot of information in the post, and links for further exploration.  This just made my recommended reading list.

Google has made the jump into supporting Microformats as well as RDFa, calling their implementation “Rich Snippets”!

This is great news on several different levels. Semantic markup within web pages provides a way to target searches much more effectively.  TechCrunch provides an excellent example:

“If I was to write a post that mentioned “The President” without naming him, Google probably wouldn’t realize that I was talking about President Obama – it might think I was referring to another US president, or perhaps the leader of a company. But using RDFa I could tag the words “The President” with “Barack Obama”. That tag would be visible to machines spidering the page for indexing (resulting in smarter search results), but wouldn’t be shown to users reading the post. In effect, it’s a way to tell search engines about your content without exposing your visitors to extraneous text.”

In addition, sites that provide well-structured metadata have the potential to be much more usable (and useful).  Library web sites, especially OPACs and Resource pages, should include structured information that details the context of the displayed content.  Using microformats in our web sites will benefit everyone involved over time.  As David Peterson notes on the SitePoint blog:

“Now that Google is supporting structured data it is high time to learn how to use this stuff.”

File this as a future wish-list item for your online catalog:

There is a new and interesting way to connect an OPAC search result for a journal to the full-text journal articles, and it is called ticTOC.  The application of this shows just how effective a well thought out mashup can be.

Last December, I ran across a blog post on RSS4Lib about the TicToc project, which has been in existence for a couple of years, but had just officially launched. I never got around to posting it, but I made a point to watch for further information.

TicTOC provides, via an RSS feed, the table of contents for the current issue of whatever journal you search for.  There are currently over 12,000 journals included in their service.  Read the RSS4Lib post (above) for a more detailed description.

There is now at least one library, Wageningen UR Digital Library in the Netherlands,  that has created a mashup in their OPAC that shows just how powerfully this can enhance an OPAC search.

Locate a journal using their e-journal search, or go straight to the result screen for the Journal of zoology : proceedings of the zoological society of London.

1. Click on “Show recent articles” on the right side of the screen.
2. To display an article’s abstract in the OPAC, click on “Show abstract”.
3. To get to the full text of an article, click on the title of the article, then click the full text link on the publisher’s site.

Two clicks from the journal result in the opac to the full text of an article in the current issue.  I am not sure what would need to be done to deal with proxys and journal databases, but for articles retrieved through the publisher’s web site, this is very straightforward and useful.

This appears to be a great service, and the Wageningen UR Library has done a fantastic job in creating the mashup.  I look forward to seeing how this is integrated into other collections.

found via RSS4Lib

Web Tech Guy and Angry Staff Person (an exaggerated tale) is a video designed to be a provocative look at the arguments for opening library/museum data to web 2.0 social uses

The video isn’t so much exaggerated as much as it packs many of the arguments one hears against social uses of data into a short time span.  It was created by Michael Edson, Director of Web and New Media Strategy for the Smithsonian Institution.

found via Stephen’s Lighthouse

The Library Web Site of the Future, written by Steven J. Bell, is yet another essay about what is wrong with library web sites, and yet it is not just another essay…

It is a strong critique that touches upon many aspects of our web presence, and emphasizes that users, both students and faculty, are increasingly bypassing it and seeking information elsewhere.  Read it with a critical eye towards your library’s web site, but I suggest taking some of it with a grain of salt.

Bell’s conclusion is that libraries have erred in not following the lead of marketing design experts, that we are moribund because we don’t let our sites be transformed into an “advertiser of campus wares to those who would buy into the brand.”

I suspect the answer is that our web sites tend to be moribund because we let them be.  We tend to design by committee, attempting to force what should be a easily navigated collection of resources into a click-fest labyrinth.

Try having someone unfamiliar with your website navigate it with a general purpose in mind (“I want to find a full-text magazine article.”) and see what blind alleys they encounter.  This is about the simplest usability test you can create, and it can be telling.  But it is only the start.

Bell suggests that focusing on usability is a misstep, and that it is simply “rearranging the deck chairs on this Titanic.”  I think that the problem is that usability is not a misstep, but only the first step in a different direction.

We need to make accessing our resources so straightforward, so open, and so universal that people will use them because it is the path of least resistance to the information they seek.

There are many elements to this, and Bell is right in many of his criticisms, but libraries need to be as universal as possible.  Keeping our resources in a silo, no matter how good the resources, does not generate traffic.  We need to open it up as much as we can, and continually push to open the rest.

In addition, we need to get our resources where our users are.  Do you use RSS to get information to users?  Do you use social networking to get information to users?  Your resources, if disseminated the right way, become your best marketing strategy.  Figure out where your potential users are, and then figure out how to connect your resources to wherever that is.

You don’t need to turn your site into a product to be marketed; you need to get your product to market.

found via LISNews

A recent post, and the resulting discussion, on Metafilter has put me in a Unicode font frenzy.  A few links of note from there and elsewhere:

• decodeunicode.org is a wiki-based collection of Unicode characters.  You can browse as well as search through the character sets.  There is a lot to see here, and you may get into your own font frenzy; you have been warned.
• FileFormat.info has a Unicode section that provides some great resources, including a UTF-8 Browser Test Page.
• Unicode.org, the official Unicode organization, has a great comprehensive Code Charts.
• Sil.org has an excellent introduction to the Unicode standard, as well as a collection of downloadable fonts and software, including my favorite font for print:  Gentium.
• An additional font family that offers great Unicode support is DejaVu, which was recommended in the MetaFilter comments.
• Two interesting characters I had not encountered before:  Reference Mark (※) and Irony Mark (؟).

As someone who has worked with an ILS that didn’t have Unicode support, which was then upgraded to support Unicode, and then changed jobs and is now working with an ILS with very limited Unicode support, I have a great appreciation for the benefits of Unicode.

Libraries should, in all that they do, attempt to store and present data in Unicode.  This includes our catalogs, web sites, and other data repositories.  Even if you offer very little outside of the standard Western characters, it makes your data that much more accessible and useful.

LibraryThing has partnered with Cambridge Information Group (Bowker, AquaBrowser, ProQuest, Serials Solutions, and RefWorks), though Tim Spaulding still retains a majority stake.

This means that we will be seeing a lot more of LibraryThing for Libraries in the future (good for everyone)!

Add Symantic Richness To Your Markup With (RDF) Ease is the title of an article on SitePoint that delves into a topic I find fascinating, yet have only dabbled in in my own website creations.

Microformats are one of the best ideas I have seen in web design since CSS.  RDF, in some form, is what the semantic web of the future will be built upon.  CSS, for all its complexity, is a powerful tool that is still growing into a transformative design language.

Read the article, even if parts of it are foreign to you.  Think about how this has the power to change the web as we know it.  Think about how it has the power to change our catalogs, our article databases, and online collections of resources (books, images, etc.).  Think about it.

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

The State Library of Ohio has just released a Request For Proposal for an Open Source Statewide Resource Sharing System (Pdf).

Their summary page (which will soon contain an F.A.Q.) states that

The desired product would provide a seamless resource sharing solution, developed and released under an open source framework, in an environment of disparate integrated library systems (ILSs).

Looking briefly through the document, it looks to me as if the closest software in the library world is the Open-ILS Evergreen project, which is the platform for Georgia Library Pines system.  The largest challenge might be the system’s need to communicate with a wide variety of existing ILS platforms.

The timeline is ambitious:  Proposals are due by the end of January; a vendor will be selected and contracts signed by mid-March, a test system will be in place by September, and the system as a whole will go live in February 2010.  Wow.

Assuming that the vendor selection process goes well (Equinox and LibLime, are you ready?), this will be a very exciting time to be involved with Ohio libraries!  I am psyched!

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.

In Beverly, Massachusetts a mob of 20 LibraryThing enthusiasts cataloged the entire collection of St. John’s church library, as well as the rector’s book collection, consisting of over 2,000 books (averaging 100 books per person).

Akin to an Amish barn-raising, the idea was to get a group together and get the job done in one day.

found via the LibraryThing blog

* disclaimer:  I find this interesting on its own, but as I am in a middle of a months-long group project to move my church’s catalog to a different ILS (as well as getting them an OPAC) I can only feel jealous about the speed at which this was accomplished.

Whether you are a web designer, or just want to test a given web page (your OPAC, for instance?) for accessibility, WebAnywhere is a great web-based resource.

What it is, simply put, is a screen reader that works within your browser without requiring a plug-in or specialty software.  Just enter the url of the website you wish to have read, and it simply works.

This is a great way to enable all your library computers to be a bit more accessible, without having to install anything; as well as providing a resource for those with visual limitations.

found via MetaFilter

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.