>> 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.
Sure. You know what else is ironic? That I had to spend 8 months petitioning my administrators to submit a dump of our catalogue to Open Library in order for me to get my hands on my own MARC records. >> 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. Some of us are bending as many rules as possible and taking career risks to get things done and work towards *actual* participation, so if it doesn't go far enough for you, cut us some slack. Welcome to the library world, Tim. It's full of things that are ironic and sad and don't make sense. MJ _______________________________________________ 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]
