Comments on: A look at the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records revision

By: paul walk’s weblog » Blog Archive » Smoke and mirrors, or good intentions?

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:06:19 +0000

[...] revisit the arguments here – there was significant commentary criticising the changes (e.g 1 2 3 4 5) and a response from Karen Calhoun: essentially the concerns revolved around the perception that [...]

By: OCLC’s proposed new guidelines for the transfer of bibliographic records | Terry’s Worklog

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:00:57 +0000

[...] significant changes to the document. I’ve added my comments regarding this revision here: http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset/blog/ archives/582 This entry was posted on Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am and is filed under Monopolist . [...]

By: Administrator

Administrator — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:42:22 +0000

Ed,

Yes — in the URI as well. I was thinking in the MARC subfields simply because it would make it much easier to parse on the MARC side of things — but for portability outside of MARC — you are right.

By: Ed Summers

Ed Summers — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:06:34 +0000

Nice analysis Terry. Rather than putting the version number into a MARC subfield I would recommend they version the URI itself. This would parallel work done by Creative Commons: e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/ , http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ , http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 .

By: inkdroid » Blog Archive » bibliovirus

inkdroid » Blog Archive » bibliovirus — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:01:29 +0000

[...] 2008-11-07: check out Terry’s re-analysis of “the Policy” when a new version was brought back online by [...]

By: Elaine Sanchez

Elaine Sanchez — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:33:49 +0000

Thank you for doing this excellent work. It has all become so contractual. There is no mention of public review, which I think was until Feb. 2009. Has that changed, do you know? I also have been very concerned about the future of library services and how OCLC is becoming the bibliographic monopoly of the world, having gobbled up any and all other services (UTLASS, RLIN, WLN, etc.). I worry that OCLC intends on becoming a for-profit agency that will eventually provide most library services, thus eliminating local control, local needs — WorldCat local is a big step into this. It’s not a wise move to allow OCLC to gain so much power over our library services. One size, the OCLC size, does not and should not ever fit all. We have have to realize the quickening steps OCLC has taken to start compiling all of our services into their products, many of which are for a fee. For-Profit OCLC in 10 years, with our implicit permission because we didn’t stop this, and their ownership of all our records and monopoly of our service needs, is something I’m afraid of.