Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for NE code4lib meetup location

2008-10-18 Thread Ross Singer
Given the voting method, no.  A rating system is already a run off.

-Ross.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Barnett, Jeffrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I joined myself to the group just today, too late to vote, but what I see is 
 23 votes for Boston and 43 for anywhere else.  Shouldn't there at least be a 
 runoff?

 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay Luker
 Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:48 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Vote for NE code4lib meetup location

 Sorry to leave you all in suspense all day. The results are in:

 23 Boston, MA
 18 Northampton, MA
 14 Concord, NH
 11 Portland, ME

 Michael Klein has said he will now check when a suitable space will be
 available at BPL. Then we'll update the WhenIsGood page and hope for
 some availability intersection goodness.

 --jay



Re: [CODE4LIB] NAF notification service from OCLC

2008-10-18 Thread Ya'aqov Ziso
Greetings Karen Calhoun,

Given OpenSource/Apache¹s SOLR 1.3 and its new features, VUfind are trying
to match headings from the bibliographic index to an authority index.
 
This thread has been focused on a notification for the weekly NAF updates
(not on getting the full NAF, nor on reminiscing, with all due respect,
NACO¹s history and strength).
We have a way to harvest the LCSH and NAF files; we have a way to get the
LCSH updates from CSB. The only updates we can not get (without paying
annually $5,200 to an authority vendor) are the NAF updates. Since OCLC is
getting these NAF updates from NACO, making them available to OCLC members,
I have proposed that OCLC would also provide the 010 list for those weekly
NAF updates. Nothing else.

The OpenSource venues for metadata harvesting and discovery beyond the
traditional ILS are happening, right now. Possibly, practices and decisions
that seemed expedient 20 years ago grew out of touch. This is an opportunity
for a collaboration between your office, OCLC/WorldCat and Metadata Services
and CODE4LIB. If your reply is that we wait 2 years for this to be reviewed,
or that we go to another vendor, that will do.

Regards,
Ya¹aqov Ziso, eResources-Serials, Rowan University

=

(from AUTOCAT)

Hello again Ya'aqov Ziso,

Sorry this is long, but I thought some clarity might be achieved by
providing a perspective on the partnership between LC, the bibliographic
utilities, and libraries that has brought the NACO program to its present
strength.

In answer to your questions:

1. OCLC has never charged for use of the LC NAF and does not intend to do
so.

2. Because there have never been charges, there have been no credits for
NACO authority records. Many years ago, OCLC experimented with building an
update service for authority records, but there was insufficient demand for
it among OCLC members. I am not sure, but this kind of service may be
available nowadays from one of the authority control vendors.

3 and 4a. For many years -- since about 1988 -- OCLC, RLG, and LC were
partners in the distribution and management of the NAF. (I wrote a paper
about this collaboration some years ago, which I believe can still be
accessed through a Google search--will try to send the URL separately).

Before 1988, NACO contributors typed paper worksheets and mailed them to LC
for rekeying. The CLR (now CLIR) provided seed money for RLG and OCLC to
build contribution and data exchange systems to support online NACO work in
both RLG and OCLC, together with the means to keep LC's and the two
utilities' copies of the NAF within 24 hours of synchronization with each
other. This was called the Linked Systems Project. Some old timers may
remember it.

The CLR seed funding was quickly exhausted, and the two utilities finished
the development and then supported the costs of file synchronzation and
online contribution by NACO participants on their own, without charging
fees. Since the RLG OCLC merger, OCLC has been supporting the NAF
contribution/data exchange system. Fees for the service have never been
charged.

Under the circumstances, LC and OCLC believe there is a mutual exchange of
value between themselves and the NACO libraries, and the partners have
called it even. To your point, LC does not charge OCLC for NAF data, and
OCLC does not charge LC or NACO participants for hosting the NACO
contribution/data exchange/synchronization system.

I have 20 years of perspective on this history of support for NACO, since I
was directly involved with building the Linked Systems Project as well as
getting NACO libaries trained to use it from 1988 through about 1993. It's
my belief that without the dedication, successful partnership, and
significant contribution of resources by the people at LC, RLG, and OCLC to
the system that underpins NACO, the NACO program woukd never have been able
to expand to what it is today. Obviously the thriving program that exists
today woukd never have happened without the commitment of the NACO libraries
either -- but it took all of us to build it and keep it going all these
years.

4b. I believe CODE4LIB could subscribe to the NAF through LC's Catalog
Distribution Service.

Hope this is helpful to you.

Karen


Re: [CODE4LIB] NAF notification service from OCLC

2008-10-18 Thread Ya'aqov Ziso
Exactly Karen: my suggestion (since OCLC gets the weekly NAF update file for
OCLC) is to extract from that file all its 010 fields: using those 010s,
CODE4LIB can then extract the authority records (using Batch in CONNEXION).

OCLC promulgates NAF for its members, and that will be a notification
service for the NAF added that very week. Kindest thanks for your attention,
Ya¹aqov 



On 10/18/08 7:20 PM, Calhoun,Karen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 OCLC gets the same data as anyone that subscribes to the NAF updates--the LC
 copy of the NAF is the master copy, not OCLC's. Your best bet in the near term
 is to subscribe to the updates.
 
 Karen
 
 
 Sent from my Blackberry
 
 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
 
 
 From: Ya'aqov Ziso
 To: Calhoun,Karen
 Sent: Sat Oct 18 17:11:00 2008
 Subject: NAF notification service from OCLC
 Karen, in case you are not subscribed to CODE4LIB, here¹s my note to you
 there. 
 
 -- Forwarded Message
 From: Ya'aqov Ziso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:25:09 -0400
 To: Code for Libraries CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: NAF notification service from OCLC
 
 Greetings Karen Calhoun,
 
 Given OpenSource/Apache¹s SOLR 1.3 and its new features, VUfind are trying to
 match headings from the bibliographic index to an authority index.
  
 This thread has been focused on a notification for the weekly NAF updates (not
 on getting the full NAF, nor on reminiscing, with all due respect, NACO¹s
 history and strength).
 We have a way to harvest the LCSH and NAF files; we have a way to get the LCSH
 updates from CSB. The only updates we can not get (without paying annually
 $5,200 to an authority vendor) are the NAF updates. Since OCLC is getting
 these NAF updates from NACO, making them available to OCLC members, I have
 proposed that OCLC would also provide the 010 list for those weekly NAF
 updates. Nothing else.
 
 The OpenSource venues for metadata harvesting and discovery beyond the
 traditional ILS are happening, right now. Possibly, practices and decisions
 that seemed expedient 20 years ago grew out of touch. This is an opportunity
 for a collaboration between your office, OCLC/WorldCat and Metadata Services
 and CODE4LIB. If your reply is that we wait 2 years for this to be reviewed,
 or that we go to another vendor, that will do.
 
 Regards,
 Ya¹aqov Ziso, eResources-Serials, Rowan University
 
 =
 
 (from AUTOCAT)
 
 Hello again Ya'aqov Ziso,
 
 Sorry this is long, but I thought some clarity might be achieved by providing
 a perspective on the partnership between LC, the bibliographic utilities, and
 libraries that has brought the NACO program to its present strength.
 
 In answer to your questions:
 
 1. OCLC has never charged for use of the LC NAF and does not intend to do so.
 
 2. Because there have never been charges, there have been no credits for NACO
 authority records. Many years ago, OCLC experimented with building an update
 service for authority records, but there was insufficient demand for it among
 OCLC members. I am not sure, but this kind of service may be available
 nowadays from one of the authority control vendors.
 
 3 and 4a. For many years -- since about 1988 -- OCLC, RLG, and LC were
 partners in the distribution and management of the NAF. (I wrote a paper about
 this collaboration some years ago, which I believe can still be accessed
 through a Google search--will try to send the URL separately).
 
 Before 1988, NACO contributors typed paper worksheets and mailed them to LC
 for rekeying. The CLR (now CLIR) provided seed money for RLG and OCLC to build
 contribution and data exchange systems to support online NACO work in both RLG
 and OCLC, together with the means to keep LC's and the two utilities' copies
 of the NAF within 24 hours of synchronization with each other. This was called
 the Linked Systems Project. Some old timers may remember it.
 
 The CLR seed funding was quickly exhausted, and the two utilities finished the
 development and then supported the costs of file synchronzation and online
 contribution by NACO participants on their own, without charging fees. Since
 the RLG OCLC merger, OCLC has been supporting the NAF contribution/data
 exchange system. Fees for the service have never been charged.
 
 Under the circumstances, LC and OCLC believe there is a mutual exchange of
 value between themselves and the NACO libraries, and the partners have called
 it even. To your point, LC does not charge OCLC for NAF data, and OCLC does
 not charge LC or NACO participants for hosting the NACO contribution/data
 exchange/synchronization system.
 
 I have 20 years of perspective on this history of support for NACO, since I
 was directly involved with building the Linked Systems Project as well as
 getting NACO libaries trained to use it from 1988 through about 1993. It's my
 belief that without the dedication, successful partnership,