What we’re left with, though, is parsing OCLC’s words in light of past practices and current events. From that perspective, I think I’m in the cautiously accepting camp as well. At the very least, I’m trying to be mindful of my biases with regards to the Record Use policy debate when I’m reading and thinking about this new information.

To me “web-scale” is a combination of having a system that operates at the extreme ends of internet scale (think: FriendFeed, Twitter, Library Thing, Delicious, etc., and not so much LC’s catalog…or anybody’s OPAC for that matter) combined with the network effect of user-generated content feedback loops (think again: FriendFeed, Library Thing, etc.). Interestingly, one of the top hits in a Google search on the term is to a January 2007 blog post by Lorcan Dempsey, but there are other uses of the phrase.

“is distinguished by the cooperative “network effect” of all libraries using the same..”

ALL libraries? Like, every library everywhere?

That’s not going to happen, even if it were desirable (which I don’t think it is, to anyone but OCLC; the monopolistic aspirations are rather laid bare there, aren’t they?)

I’d be a lot more comfortable if they explained how the WMS was going to be inter-operable such that you could get these benefits even before/without their rather frightening vision of 100% market penetration is realized.

You mention:

“A Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) for interoperability with local environments and 3rd party business process systems (e.g., financial management, HR systems, and course management)” — one of the hallmarks of the OLE project.)”

Okay, that’s inter-operability, that’s the POINT of this being a focus of the hallmarks of the OLE project, to allow you to mix and match components without lock-in.

So do they mean it (and what does it mean if they mean it), or is this just more buzzwords being thrown around?

I need fewer buzzwords, and more transparent sharing of strategy. Some of us are a bit cautious of accepting OCLC’s interest in inter-operating well with other players, rather than try to encourage lock-in. From one perspective, encouraging lock-in where you can’t afford NOT to use all these services from OCLC — is really the underlying force behind all this new stuff.

That said, we all know our current ILS type systems are just awful. What they are describing is certainly a better way. I want my choice of better ways, and I want to mix and match the best components from various better way ideas.

It’s odd to me that OCLC has seized on this phrase “web-scale” to describe their offerings (indeed in some places they have no name BUT for “web scale”), but don’t feel it necessary to explain what that phrase means to them. It’s not a commonly understood phrase I’m just missing out on, is it?