Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records—open for community review
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote: While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully theirs records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or not the records moved through OCLC wires. Hi Tim, can you cite the specific language in the document that says/implies this? I haven't had time to look it over in depth yet, and if you have it would be useful to keep the discussion anchored to the text. //Ed
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review
Quoting Ed Summers e...@pobox.com: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote: While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully theirs records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or not the records moved through OCLC wires. Hi Tim, can you cite the specific language in the document that says/implies this? I haven't had time to look it over in depth yet, and if you have it would be useful to keep the discussion anchored to the text. The previous policy said: An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record. (p.2) That language is not present in the new policy. kc //Ed -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review
I'm trying to get a handle on the new policy as compared to the old policy, and what it really means. All in all, it seems much more vague than the first draft, no longer trying to be an obligatory legal contract like the first draft was -- in this way more similar to the old 1987 policy. If specific rights were taken out, this kind of makes sense -- becuase if the (first draft) policy says you CAN transfer your original cataloging and non-OCLC records without permission, the implication (or was it explicit?) was that you can NOT transfer other records without permission. And does anyone really NEED OCLC's permission to transfer records that did not ever touch Worldcat in the first place? Some would be offended by OCLC giving us 'permission' to do that, implying we needed it in the first place. The second draft policy no longer exactly says or implies that the only records you can transfer are the records OCLC gives you permission to transfer. It's not entirely clear to me WHAT it says, it does not specifically make clear what you can or can not do, as was the original goal of the first draft. In the real world of administrators who are VERY deferrent to OCLC, this probably means they will continue to think they ought not to transfer any records anywhere except via OCLC. Except we are starting to see administrators acting differently. We will see. The one specific in the 2nd draft IS an improvement, and is eminently reasonable. It says a library can transfer records to a 'processing vendor', and then have the processed records returned to the library, with only a bilateral agreement between the library and the vendor, without needing to get OCLC involved at all. Believe it or not, previously, under the 1987 document, libraries generally did NOT believe they could do this, and often did NOT do it, refusing to hire a vendor who did not have an agreement with OCLC to process records that came from WorldCat. That OCLC is explicitly making it clear that a bilateral agreement is fine, is actually fine improvement, and quite reasonable. Jonathan From: Code for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:25 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review Quoting Ed Summers e...@pobox.com: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote: While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully theirs records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or not the records moved through OCLC wires. Hi Tim, can you cite the specific language in the document that says/implies this? I haven't had time to look it over in depth yet, and if you have it would be useful to keep the discussion anchored to the text. The previous policy said: An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record. (p.2) That language is not present in the new policy. kc //Ed -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: If specific rights were taken out, this kind of makes sense -- becuase if the (first draft) policy says you CAN transfer your original cataloging and non-OCLC records without permission, the implication (or was it explicit?) was that you can NOT transfer other records without permission. And does anyone really NEED OCLC's permission to transfer records that did not ever touch Worldcat in the first place? No, because those records would presumably not be considered WorldCat records. (Although the definition of WorldCat records was also removed from this version, so it's going to be hard to know if we are all talking about the same thing.) However, the original cataloging records most likely are considered WorldCat records. I recall that some folks objected to this exception on the grounds that someone may have contributed a minimum record that was then upgraded by a 2nd/3rd/4th library (with considerable effort and expense), yet the original library (defined as first code in 040 $a) would be able to do things with the enhanced record that the enhancers could not. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but this is an interesting example of the complexity of the question whose record is it? kc The second draft policy no longer exactly says or implies that the only records you can transfer are the records OCLC gives you permission to transfer. It's not entirely clear to me WHAT it says, it does not specifically make clear what you can or can not do, as was the original goal of the first draft. In the real world of administrators who are VERY deferrent to OCLC, this probably means they will continue to think they ought not to transfer any records anywhere except via OCLC. Except we are starting to see administrators acting differently. We will see. The one specific in the 2nd draft IS an improvement, and is eminently reasonable. It says a library can transfer records to a 'processing vendor', and then have the processed records returned to the library, with only a bilateral agreement between the library and the vendor, without needing to get OCLC involved at all. Believe it or not, previously, under the 1987 document, libraries generally did NOT believe they could do this, and often did NOT do it, refusing to hire a vendor who did not have an agreement with OCLC to process records that came from WorldCat. That OCLC is explicitly making it clear that a bilateral agreement is fine, is actually fine improvement, and quite reasonable. Jonathan From: Code for Libraries [code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:25 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review Quoting Ed Summers e...@pobox.com: On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote: While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully theirs records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or not the records moved through OCLC wires. Hi Tim, can you cite the specific language in the document that says/implies this? I haven't had time to look it over in depth yet, and if you have it would be useful to keep the discussion anchored to the text. The previous policy said: An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record. (p.2) That language is not present in the new policy. kc //Ed -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records—open for community review
After reading and asking around, it looks like the concept of original cataloging has been eliminated entirely. The old language was: An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully theirs records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or not the records moved through OCLC wires. This typifies the approach taken. The new terms are less legal. But laws protect rights, both positively and negatively. If a community outlaws punching, biting and kicking, its outlaws those things and not others. But if a community has a vague norm about respect for persons, and enforces them with punitive action, the community members may find themselves punished for kicking sand at someone, or giving them the finger. Tim On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com wrote: Does anyone know: Is there a what is a WorldCat record section? I can't find it. Does the original cataloger concept still apply, or has that gone away? Tim -- Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records—open for community review
Does anyone know: Is there a what is a WorldCat record section? I can't find it. Does the original cataloger concept still apply, or has that gone away? Tim
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review
Quoting Tim Spalding t...@librarything.com: Does anyone know: Is there a what is a WorldCat record section? I can't find it. Does the original cataloger concept still apply, or has that gone away? Tim Tim, I asked this of one of the authors, and he said he'd take it back to the group. I think there does need to be a definition. (Also note that if you looked at the document yesterday morning, it had changed by the afternoon -- there had been a couple of missing paragraphs... so take another look.) My question about WorldCat records has to do with whole v. parts -- I can understand that a full MARC record, with holdings, downloaded from WC could be considered a WC record. After that, there is a lot of distance between the full MARC and, say, a citation with an author, title, publisher and date. Where is the line drawn? When does it cease to be a WC record and become just another chunk of bibliographic data floating around cyberspace? kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records?open for community review
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: My question about WorldCat records has to do with whole v. parts -- I can understand that a full MARC record, with holdings, downloaded from WC could be considered a WC record. After that, there is a lot of distance between the full MARC and, say, a citation with an author, title, publisher and date. Where is the line drawn? When does it cease to be a WC record and become just another chunk of bibliographic data floating around cyberspace? This reminds of when dewey.info released RDF data under a Creative Commons No Derivative Works license, which doesn't really make sense to me. Data (as opposed to literary texts or music, for example) is always going to be manipulated for processing or display. It seemed to me that in order to ingest and use the data in any way (for example, in a web interface) you have to use a derivative, unless you are simply re-displaying the original data verbatim. But I don't think many users would want to look at raw RDF/XML. Keith
[CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat records—open for community review
This list has exhibited interest in the revision of the OCLC Guidelines on the Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records that happened a while back, and the controversy that led to its withdrawal and the creation of an entirely new process to produce another draft. Therefore, I’m pleased to let you know that earlier today the OCLC Record Use Policy Council, made up of OCLC members and two OCLC staff members (list below), notified the membership that the new draft policy is available for review and feedback. I’m certain you will find that it differs in some fairly dramatic ways from the previous revision attempt, and reflects both the rights and responsibilities of OCLC member libraries in creating and maintaining a vital and effective metadata aggregation and the important services that can be built upon it. Please read the draft policy and feel free to send your comments or questions to the Council at record...@oclc.org. Thanks, Roy TO: OCLC Members FROM: OCLC Record Use Policy Council Co-Chairs Barbara Gubbin, Director, Jacksonville Public Library, USA; and Jennifer Younger, President-Elect, OCLC Global Council and Edward H. Arnold Director of Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame, USA RE: Next-generation policy for WorldCat records—open for community review DATE: April 7, 2010 The OCLC Record Use Policy Council members have been working for the past few months to develop the next generation of a WorldCat use policy, and we are pleased to announce that the draft document, WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/default.htm , is open for community review. This Council, convened by the OCLC Board of Trustees last September, has produced a new draft document that incorporates many suggestions raised by the community over the past year. For example, rather than using legal language, we have drafted the new policy as a code of good practices, intended to outline the rights and responsibilities of OCLC members with regard to the use of WorldCat records. We intend for this document to help inform the decision-making process for member library leaders as they seek to innovate around the shared resource that is WorldCat. We have sought to encourage the widespread use of WorldCat data while also supporting the viability and utility of WorldCat and the OCLC network of services. The draft policy is not final. Between now and the end of May, we very much want your feedback. We hope you will take the time to review the draft policy carefully, and let us know your thoughts. You can post comments to the community forum http://community.oclc.org/recorduse , send an e-mail with your thoughts to record...@oclc.org mailto:record...@oclc.org , or register to attend a webinar http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/council/default.htm where you can ask questions and submit feedback to members of the Record Use Policy Council. We will continue to add content to the accompanying FAQ http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/default.htm as we get more questions from the community review process. We plan to send a revised version of the draft policy to the OCLC Board of Trustees at the end of May for final review and approval. We anticipate that a final document will be published mid-calendar year 2010. Many thanks are due to all the members and librarians who commented over the past year and whose feedback helped us formulate this new document. We would especially like to thank the members of the Record Use Policy Council: ·ChewLeng Beh, Global Council Delegate and Chair, OCLC Asia Pacific Regional Council; and Senior Director, Singapore National Library Board, Singapore ·Raymond Bérard, Global Council Delegate and Director, ABES, France ·Karen Calhoun, Vice President, OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services, OCLC, USA ·Klaus Ceynowa, Global Council Delegate and Deputy Director General, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Germany ·Christopher Cole, Global Council Delegate and Associate Director for Technical Services, National Agriculture Library, USA ·Lorcan Dempsey, Vice President, OCLC Research and Chief Strategist, OCLC, USA ·Nancy Eaton, Dean of University Libraries and Scholarly Communications, Penn State University, USA ·Clifford A. Lynch, Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), USA ·Brian E. C. Schottlaender, Global Council Delegate and The Audrey Geisel University Librarian, UC San Diego Libraries, USA ·Lamar Veatch, Global Council Delegate and State Librarian, Georgia Public Library Service–University System of Georgia, USA
