The library blogosphere's BIG question right now is: Are we going to freely open up our bibliographic data, i.e., our library metadata? And how are we going to do this?
As OCLC members/contributors: Do we want to spread the bibliographic wealth around? Or do we accept the new OCLC policy which restricts particular types of access/re-use of the bibliographic records we create and add to the WorldCat database?
Speaking as a metadata librarian, formerly known as cataloger: this is a real turning point for our area of librarianship. If we move forward with an open access/open data model with our data in the public domain, it could be pretty awesome!
No strong opinions at this point: I'm still trying to absorb blog posts and documents on OCLC's Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. I have more questions than answers:
- What's in our best interest? Our library patrons' best interest?
- What's wrong with commercial use of bibliographic records?
- How much commercial use would there actually be for bibliographic data?
- Wouldn't indifference, i.e. lack of interest, be more of a problem then commercial interest in our metadata?
- Why isn't the OCLC number enough of an identifier on bibliographic records? Do we really need the additional 996 field? Extra work for libraries to remove this field?
- Is the new policy more restrictive than the old guidelines? Less restrictive?
- Could OCLC generate enough revenue from the other services they provide?
- The power of WorldCat is the aggregation of both records and locations: If libraries start to leave OCLC for other aggregators, what will that mean for the usefulness of WorldCat?
- What would a decentralized model of OCLC look like?
(BTW, as mentioned previously: the Code4Lib wiki page: OCLC Policy Change is still the best compilation of blog posts on this issue.)
Comments