Karen Calhoun on OCLC’s Updated Record Use Policy

Karen Calhoun wrote an informative post about OCLC’s Updated Record Use Policy. I appreciate that she took the time to explain the reasoning behind the newly updated policy and the process that OCLC took in coming up with it. I am also, as noted earlier, am happy that the attribution aspects have changed from required to encouraged. Anyone who is interested in this policy (and I think every librarian should be) should take the time to look at what she had to say. I never disagreed with the need for the new policy, just how it was being implemented and some of the terms and restrictions put on it.

I wrote a response to Karen Calhoun’s post (mostly detailing some of the major points I have already written here), to which she graciously replied. It seems like one of the major issues that I point to that made the new policy a disaster was an oversite, so I look forward to seeing that corrected. As of now, Karen’s Metalogue blog seems to be the best place for public input right now, so if you have any concerns about this policy it may be worth posting them there.


  1. Tim said,

    November 5, 2008 at 19:11:10

    I’m undecided on the notice requirements. It looks to me like whether notice is given or not, the terms remain in effect. In such a situation, it’s better to know what’s going on and to what records than to have ambiguous records floating around.

    Do you see my point?

  2. ecorrado said,

    November 6, 2008 at 17:11:44


    I see your point. I still think it is an improvement for it not to be required though. I am undecided what I would recommend that we do at Binghamton University at this time. I think I need to see how this shakes out a little more. One of the things I really didn’t like about the notice requirements is it looked like they were only going to link to the current version of the policy. I am happy to see that Karen Calhoun forwarded this concern of mine to the Study Group and David Whitehair has posted that they will add versioning information to the 996 field. Between the now “encouraged” nature of the 996 and the versioning I am a lot more happy with the attribution issue. Of course, that doesn’t help fix the other concerns I have, but it is a start.