OCLC announced late yesterday the members of the review board. In addition, they announced the establishment of an e-mail address for communicating with the review board (reviewboard@oclc.org).
Members of the Review Board of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship are:
- Christopher Cole (FEDLINK): Associate Director for Technical Services, National Agricultural Library
- Poul Erlandsen (EMEA): Head, Document Access Services and Collection Management, Danish University of Education, National Library of Education
- Pat French (OCLC Western): Manager, Collection and Technical Services, Multnomah County Library
- Clifford A. Lynch: Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
- Brian E. C. Schottlaender (OCLC Western): The Audrey Geisel University Librarian, UC San Diego Libraries
- Ted Schwitzner (ILLINET): Head, Bibliographic Services Division, Illinois State University, Milner Library
- Roberta Shaffer (FLICC/FEDLINK/LC): Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Library of Congress
- Lamar Veatch (COSLA/SOLINET): State Librarian, Georgia Public Library Service—University System of Georgia
- Elsie Weatherington (SOLINET): Dean, University Library, Virginia State University
- Jennifer Younger (INCOLSA): Edward H. Arnold Director of Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame
Another member from a European national library is expected to be appointed to the Review Board.
I’ve already reiterated my call for more conversation with the members of the review board, rather than a one-way feed of “reports, letters and comments including blog and listserv messages.” This evening I sent this message to reviewboard@oclc.org:
Members of the Review Board:
I respectfully request that the review board establish a mechanism to promote dialog among those interested in the guidelines and policies surrounding member-contributed creation and enhancements to WorldCat records. This is desirable, in part, to promote understanding by the members of the cooperative and the community; it is likely the outcome will be more accepted if the source documents from which the review board makes its determinations are commonly available. It is also useful for the community to share a forum to debate the issues in a manner that effectively consolidates the points of discussion for the review board; as it stands, discussion is duplicated and scattered across the internet.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Peter Murray, speaking for himself, not for his employer
Hat tip to Rick Mason for adding this to the OCLC policy tracking page on the Code4Lib Wiki. That’s where I found it first.
![[Creative Commons Logo]](/wp-content/themes/local/cc-by-na-sa-30-us-88x31.png){kind=small}
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
2 Comments
Sent to OCLC review board
I would like to reiterate what I said at the ALA Midwinter meeting. I really appreciate the articulate comments made by the speakers. What you really end up dealing with are the messy metadata pieces that Peter Murray from OhioLink described. Furthermore it makes no sense to me that for every little project like the one described by the person from Newberry Library, where they were considering working with a commercial vendor to digitize their materials, should require that every library come and bow down to OCLC to have them allow the library to use their records in the project. That really does not scale as a process. You should use the type of free or shared use license that was suggested.
I also dispute Karen Calhoun’s explanation that only 2 % of a library’s records are original cataloging so that’s all they ever paid for. Excuse me. Libraries paid OCLC first time use fees that used to be $1.50 apiece. I believe we paid more than that for a 1.3 million recon project we did with OCLC. So we have literally paid OCLC millions of dollars. I would suggest that the purchasing and legal departments of universities would not allow them to sign up for OCLC under the terms of the proposed policy. So, OCLC is saying, pay us millions of dollars but you can only use those records if we say you can. I just don’t think institutions would agree. Not for these MARC records where the bulk of them could be had from LC for free or for a minimal subscription price.
OCLC is not advancing the interests of its members by trying to exert control over the use of MARC records. As I commented at the meeting, it is solidifying into a lump of rock in the stream and I think there should be a concern that the world will flow past and that will be the end of its usefulness. OCLC needs to have a different business plan instead of just depending on cataloging as the cash cow and then using such a lame policy to try to prop it up. You should put some kind of free use license on the records and charge for cataloging, ILL and other services like timely inclusion in Worldcat.org. Don’t try to rent out the records, or worse prevent their use.
I remember having to argue with developers at OCLC when I first started working there after being in a network. They were afraid to let libraries download MARC records into their local systems and tried to resist allowing that to happen (remember that’s how Innovative Interfaces got started? By screen scraping to do that). Imagine what would have happened if OCLC had maintained that stance and refused to let people download to their ILS’s . They would have gone elsewhere. The genie is out of the bottle. OCLC has not magic word to get it back. They need to move on to innovations, not protect records they never produced in the first place. They should find a way to help LC to continue to produce the many, many records we depend on getting from them. They are the ones who do the bulk of the work.
Thank you, Frances. I followed the link back to your blog and noted that you had posted a fairly comprehensive summary of the the presentations at midwinter and the questions/answers from the floor after the presentations. Folks will probably also be interested in reading that.
1 Trackback
[...] of the OCLC Review Board Announced [web link]Disruptive Library Technology Jester (08/Feb/2009)“…library_of_congress lamar veatch [...]
Post a Comment