Agreed here as well. And just to clarify: the value I see isn't so much in Open Library as a "high-quality" (by whatever MARC-based standards) cataloguing source, but rather one that's free/libre as opposed to, say, OCLC/WorldCat.
That alone is motivation for libraries to participate in (read: contribute records to) Open Library, as long as they can get something back out (i.e. via Z39.50), even of lesser "quality". MJ On 2010-05-11, at 10:40 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > Whatever data you have, there is some way to encode it in MARC. If you > didn't capture everything in the original MARC with full granularity, > then, sure, of course your resulting "back to" MARC is not going to have > all the information the original MARC had. But it will have all the > information in your actual OL record. That's all I'm suggesting would > be useful. > > Jonathan > > Tim Spalding wrote: >> But could you really walk back from OL to MARC? It seems to me >> OL-to-MARC conversion is a lossy, one-way conversion. You could get >> some sort of placeholder record, like libraries sometimes have for a >> pre-publication book, but not much more. >> >> Shall we go through examples, or shall we just agree on that? >> >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> Ol-tech mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >> [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Ol-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
