« Embracing the future - my paradigm shift | Main | Comments to the LC working group »

Friday, December 14, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Hear, hear!

Amen, Sister!

I second this motion!

Wake up OCLC. Please.

I had begun to resign myself to sending in error reports until this morning when the error report I was trying to send kept repeatedly failing. It never did go through. I fixed my record and moved on. So much for cooperative cataloging. Sigh.

Thanks for a more positive post than mine Christine. Maybe they'll be more likely to listen to you. I sure hope so.


Plus, to add to this...OCLC wants to start a pilot project to see how they can had publisher data to the records...http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/200688.htm

I may be completely wrong on this, but how often does one see a quality vendor record? Why should we trust additional information from these vendors? And most importantly, if OCLC is looking to find additional sources of information from vendors, why can't they open up their systems and let trained professionals correct records that need correcting?

I completely agree with your statement, Christine, and OCLC needs to move to Web 2.0. It's time to have a wikipedia-like OCLC...maybe not everyone has access (although that's an interesting thought), but definitely everyone who pays them to add/use records to "their" collection.


I think that if the mapping and crosswalking from ONIX records is done properly, and the ONIX records are decent to begin with, this change OCLC is proposing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Considering how much call there has been to start getting some level of metadata earlier in the production cycle, it is a step in that direction.

It remains to be seen how much work it will be for catalogers who upgrade these ONIX-based records. If they're anything like those Baker & Taylor Level 3 records, then, no, it isn't worth it. But it has potential.

Chris Schwartz

Thanks for these comments--sorry for my late reply. Over the weekend I read OCLC's response to the LC working group report. Found it over on Lorcan Dempsey's blog: http://staff.oclc.org/~levan/LC%20WG%20Report%20Comments%20OCLC%2020071214.pdf. It does address the redundancy issue, but not sufficiently (in my opinion). It makes the assumption that most libraries are cataloging in their local ILS and batch loading their holdings to OCLC (and so would have to double key edits and changes to modify the master record). I think there are plenty of catalogers that are working directly in OCLC WorldCat and could make the records better as they go. I know Mark and I feel this way.

Nathan, you have it right--"it's time to have a wikipedia-like OCLC."

K.G. Schneider

Here, here!

Bryan Campbell

You might want to check out a recent .ppt presentation on how OCLC is using data from the publishers to enrich or create catalog records. One such presentation, "New Directions in Cataloging at OCLC," is available at http://www.oclc.org/news/events/presentations/2008/ala2008annual/ALANext_Gen.ppt

The comments to this entry are closed.

Scope of blog

  • The focus of this blog is the future of cataloging and metadata in libraries.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    July 2014

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30 31    


    Future of Cataloging: Key Resources (to May 2008)

    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 04/2007