Tim, if you want to provide an absolutely free aggregator of untouched library MARC data, you are welcome to do so. That's not what OL is focusing on, and I don't think they're wrong. Everyone has limited resources.
Tim Spalding wrote: >> 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] > _______________________________________________ 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]
