> 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.
It's just ironic that to get your free, not-so-good free, you started with free, excellent data. > 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". I guess I find it sad that you need the "read: contribute to." Libraries started with the impression they would *actually* participate in the project, not fake-participate. As for the quotes around quality, the less said the better. 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]
