There is a surprisingly high correlation, when I look at job listings, between companies that describe themselves as "Web 2.0" and job descriptions demanding that candidates bring experience scaling applications to the table. My suspicion is that "Web 2.0" has become a euphemism for haphazard design processes, and now all these organizations who threw together these applications and freaking out. Not that I am bashing agile development, or promoting a particular development process such as the rather clunky unified model, but when I read "move in a Web 2.0 speed", I get nervous about how unrealistic expectations are being set in the software industry, and what sort of problems we may be looking at in the future due to a lack of planning systems that are actually scalable and maintainable.
Sorry for the rant, but this just pushes my curmudgeon button. - David --- David Cloutman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Electronic Services Librarian Marin County Free Library -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ziso, Ya'aqov Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:44 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] NAF notification service from OCLC Roy, OCLC gets the weekly NAF updates, can simply run a grep command to extract the 010 fields to a new file, and put the new file in a place available for OCLC members' retrieval. Explaining why OCLC needs to take 2 years for considering their competing priorities with those of their partners doesn't help much as we move in a Web 2.0 speed. Unless this proposal can be fulfilled, respectfully, let's agree to disagree on this, and move on. Ya'aqov -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Roy Tennant Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 10:13 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] NAF notification service from OCLC Ya'aqov, The answer is not "no", it is exactly as Karen described. Since you interpret this as "no", I wonder if you have a less than complete grasp on what it takes to develop an ongoing production service upon which you can rely. Also, I hope you can appreciate that we have many competing priorities that we cannot simply ignore in order to respond to a new service idea. As most institutions do, we have a procedure for weighing development priorities and making strategic decisions that we cannot simply throw aside upon a whim. Lastly, part of what we would be required to do is to work with the Library of Congress as the producer of the data before we could create such a service. Thank you for allowing me to further explain why we cannot simply implement your proposal. Roy On 10/12/08 10/12/08 . 11:39 AM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> suggestion to our list of potential new services and enhancements for > consideration in our next round of planning for development in fiscal year > 2010. > > Roy, Karen, > The deferment suggested by your reply leaves out CODE4LIB's core offer, > to engage timely technologies for the libraries available currently, in the > pace of Web 2.0. It seems OCLC has yet to find way to cope with the pace of > such offers. If there were two ways of saying No to our NAF update > notification request from OCLC, I guess you opted for the second. > Legitimately and respectfully I take this as a No. > Regards, > Ya'aqov Ziso, > > > > On 10/11/08 5:48 PM, "Roy Tennant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Forwarded by permission. >> Roy >> >> On 10/10/08 10/10/08 . 2:57 PM, "Calhoun,Karen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Ya'aqov Ziso, >>> >>> Your email request/proposal of 4 October 2008 to Roy Tennant ("My proposal >>> to >>> you is that OCLC will start offering a NEW service to its >>> members/subscribers. >>> That service will be a simple listing of the 010 fields for Name authority >>> records that have been CHANGED that week in the OCLC NAF, and 010 for the >>> new >>> Name authority records for that have been ADDED to NAF.") has been referred >>> by >>> OCLC Research to the OCLC Metadata Services product group for consideration. >>> >>> We are pleased to receive your suggestion for a new service. We will add >>> this >>> suggestion to our list of potential new services and enhancements for >>> consideration in our next round of planning for development in fiscal year >>> 2010. >>> >>> Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. >>> >>> Karen >>> >>> Karen Calhoun >>> Vice President, WorldCat and Metadata Services >>> 6565 Kilgour Place >>> Dublin OH 43017 >>> 800-848-5878 x6441 >>> 614-764-6441 >>> FAX: 614-718-7457 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> On 10/4/08 10/4/08 . 2:02 PM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The following message has been posted also in ACAT >>> =============================== >>> Roy, >>> >>> Kindest thanks for providing language in-between systems engineers such >>> as CODE4LIB and bibliographic control librarians such as ACAT >>> ( http://techessence.info/tech/ ). The premise of my appeal to you was that >>> you also represent OCLC Programs & Research when contributing to CODE4LIB >>> and ACAT. >>> >>> 1. CODE4LIB expressed interest in obtaining a copy of LCSH and NAF and their >>> weekly updates (see the first eMail in the thread you're pointing at >>> http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2008/200809/subject.html >>> from Andrew Nagy, then 2 follow ups from Andrew and myself). >>> >>> 2. At a later point in the thread, the focus was placed on the UPDATES for >>> NAF. OCLC are receiving weekly updates for NAF, updating and making these >>> files current for OCLC subscribers/members. >>> >>> 3. My proposal to you is that OCLC will start offering a NEW service to its >>> members/subscribers. That service will be a simple listing of the 010 fields >>> for Name authority records that have been CHANGED that week in the OCLC NAF, >>> and 010 for the new Name authority records for that have been ADDED to NAF. >>> >>> 4. Such service will assist system staff in planning their authority work >>> and sufficient also for CODE4LIB's current purposes. >>> >>> If you wish to explore this opportunity for collaboration some more, I will >>> be glad to follow up offline. Kindest thanks, >>> >>> Ya'aqov Ziso, Rowan University >>> >>> ================================= >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Roy Tennant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Ya'aqov, I'm afraid I don't have any idea to what you are referring. >>>>> Although I had posted one message on an authorities thread in Code4Lib, it >>>>> wasn't this at all. Anyone who wants to see this thread can do so at: >>>>> >>>>> http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2008/200809/subject.html >>>>> >>>>> Look for "LOC Authority Data". Thanks, >>>>> Roy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/1/08 10/1/08 ? 9:56 AM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> The following request from OCLC/Roy Tennant (in another list) may be of >>>>>>> interest also here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can OCLC provide a service to its members with a list of 010 (only the >>>>> 010) >>>>>>> for the NAME authority records for the specific weekly update of each >>>>>>> >>> >> week >>>>>>> OCLC receive from NACO/LC? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a simple grep from the NAF weekly update, listing additions and >>>>>>> changes to NAF for that week. That seems to be no infringement of any >>>>>>> >>> >> copy >>>>>>> rights, just pointers to records that can be reviewed by system staff >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> planning their authority work. A most useful service from OCLC. Kindest >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>> >>> > -- Email Disclaimer: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm
