I wrote a post about the BookChaser Editions service last year, but encountered a reference to another service they offer, and this led me to others:

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

Big news today in the announcement that Google has acquired OCLC. What will this mean for libraries? The merging of the Google Books Project and Worldcat, for starters. The library blogs are all over this story, so I will simply link to a few of them:

• ALA TechSource
• Free Range Librarian
• Hectic Pace
• Library Garden

Although I am really excited by this development, I understand why it isn’t getting much more mainstream press. It is a weekend, for one. Then there is the Final Four, and the ongoing political troubles for the Bush administration. Plus it is the beginning of the month, as well. Wow… is it April 1st already? Time’s fun when you are having flies.

See also: Gmail Paper