Karen Coyle writes about the Library of Congress and their follow-up to the lcsh.info shuttering last fall.  In LC discovers infinity, she points out that at ALA Midwinter they not only stated that they recognized the value of the service, but that they were planning on re-releasing it as “Library of Congress Subject Headings” within 6-8 weeks.

Then she points out that 9 weeks have passed, with no changes on the website, nor updates as to the progress being made.

Any project, including re-implementing a service that was fully functional, can run into complications.  We have all experienced this.  The key is keeping people informed, and being realistic about solving problems.

LC should not have shut down lcsh.info in the manner they did; they should have implemented their version first, then allowed for an overlap (6 months, for instance) to give those who had integrated the service into their systems time to switch over.  What we have is a mess, and the pressure is on the Library of Congress to clean it up.

Karen Coyle wrote an excellent post about OCLC’s delayed implementation of the records licensing policy.  An exerpt:

Those of us who promote open access must use this time wisely.

• First, we need to get some solid legal advice. It’s clear that OCLC can propose any kind of conditions in a contract and hope to get signers; it’s less clear that OCLC can impose a contract on members 1) without their explicit agreement 2) that covers data created before the contract becomes valid 3) that binds third parties to the contract.
• Next, anyone who has bibliographic data should release it “into the wild” as quickly as possible. Once the data is circulating, it will not be possible to withdraw it. One solution is to create database dumps and to upload these to the Internet Archive. They will be there for downloading by others, and some of the data may end up in the Open Library. Assuming that bibliographic records cannot be covered by copyright, all of this data ends up in the public domain to fuel innovation and creativity.

If enough people take advantage of this extra time to better understand the copyright issues as well as to provide the data stored in their systems to open repositories, the message that will be sent not only to OCLC but everyone involved with libraries will be this:

We are more interested in services and sharing than in ownership.  Our values and our culture are built from this premise.  Organizations and companies that wish to work with us need to understand this, and they need to provide services and sharing as their top priority.  Since this is what we value, whis is what we will reward.

Karen Coyle writes about what is needed for the libraries of the world that don’t have the resources needed to install and use a full-featured integrated library system (ILS).

There must be a minor psychic link involved (don’t worry Karen, your secrets are safe with me! ), because just a few minutes before she posted this I was explaining to someone the benefits of a fully online ILS that would allow libraries to get by using only an internet connection. There are a few (very few) systems that follow this philosophy, and I am looking through them to see if any are fully fleshed out. I will post what I find out.

Karen Coyle (again) has written a great post on the subject of the Dewey Decimial Classification system, the Library of Congress Classification system, and Library of Congress Subject Headings.

She highlights what, to my view, is one of the major problems with all three of them : they are too complex for their own good.  To structure classification and subject information in a straightforward, scalable manner is a daunting challenge.  That we don’t have this structure is hurting us, and this will only get more prominent as time goes on.

Karen Coyle has written a post on Coyle’s InFormation that I feel greatly helps to explain why it can be so complex to structure bibliographic information.

I first encountered Entity-Relationships (note:  right now this link is not a great introduction to the concept, but provides some good examples) when learning to create queries and reports from a Voyager database.  It was intimidating, to say the least, but was one of several steps that proved to be extremely helpful.

The diagrams, for whatever they represent, usually mirror the complexity of the system they represent.  They oftentimes are the most effective way to show this.

Understanding this complexity in bibliographic structure is important, I feel, because it allows us library types to better evaluate the tools that we use and select.  An OPAC search screen, or an ILS module, or any program we use is more useful when its structure better fits the entity-relationship that already exists for our materials.  A spreadsheet is great for certain types of information and presentation; a word processor for others.  A program that doesn’t fit the structure so well tends to be “clunky” to use in that context.

Read her post.  Repeat as necessary.  Don’t feel that you need to memorize the detail, or be able to re-create her diagrams.  Simply get the gist of what she has put into words and pictures, and know that it will help you in your daily work, and in your understanding of how things work.

isbndb.com is one of several websites that allow you to search for books by isbn, as well as the usual title/author/keyword searching. 

Give it a try:  grab a nearby book (if you are like me, there are quite a few nearby, aren’t there?) and run a few searches.  What you can get is a summary of the book’s content, links to online retailers, and even a general Dewey and LC classification.  No MARC records, unfortunately….

I have used ISBN.nu for several years, and one thing it offers that this new site doesn’t seem to is links to other versions of the book.  I am likely to use both of these sites when searching for book information in the future.

from Karen Coyle, via the OpenLibrary listserv

Deceptive Copyright Notices is a post by Karen Coyle post about those notices that restrict the reader’s/viewer’s rights beyond what is allowable under copyright, and an interesting complaint filed with the FTC.

Also included is a neat reversal of the FBI notice that we all see on videotapes and dvds:

WARNING. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair use” and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching, and parody.

In a way, it makes more sense to emphasize what people can do, as opposed to what they shouldn’t, don’t you think? 

On Coyle’s InFormation, a blog written by the ever-interesting Karen Coyle, there is a discussion about the transcripts of a Section 108 Study Group meeting hosted by the Library of Congress on the topic of copyright, libraries and digitization.  These meetings are happening because Section 108 was written to create guidelines for photocopying, and digitization/internet issues aren’t covered in any clear way. 

Sounds a bit dry?  Actually, it isn’t.  Karen does an excellent job of selecting key passages that reflect the lines being drawn in the debate over what should, and should not, be allowed in the realm of library research and inter-library loan(ILL).  If you care about ILL services, database access, and access to information, you really should read her blog entry.

The official summary of the Users and Uses of Bibliographic Data meeting held by the Library of Congress at Google’s headquarters last week has been posted.

Karen Coyle’s blog has her notes from the meetings.

from Coyle’s InFormation and Catalogablog

The Library of Congress has formed the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, and will be having their first public meeting tomorrow, March 8th, at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

The truly interesting thing is that anyone can attend, no prior registration needed. I would love to be able to drop in at Google tomorrow and delve into the topic of Users and Uses of Bibliographic Data, but it isn’t going to happen for me without a tornado, puppy and ruby slippers. Andrew Pace and Karen Markey are among the speakers; it ought to be an excellent day.

Karen Schneider was inspired to dash off an open letter to the Library of Congress on ALA TechSource. Karen Coyle is planning to attend (as per a post to the NGC4Lib listserv) and will likely post info on her blog about the meeting.

I am entertaining the idea of wandering over to Chicago for their May 9th meeting on “Structures and Standards for Bibliographic Data”, which I think I would find almost as fascinating as the user focus of this meeting. Several things would need to fall into place to allow that to happen, including the LOC keeping the meetings open to all without invitation, and I think I shall see what the feedback from tomorrow is before pursuing it.