Search Results for 'OCLC' ↓

It was not unexpected, and happened last week, but since I mentioned the controversy enough on this blog, I figured I’d let everyone know that “OCLC has formally withdrawn the proposed policy [and a] new group will soon be assembled to begin work to draft a new policy with more input and participation from the OCLC membership.” This is good news but those interested in fair, open exchange of data, need to be vigilant about what the new policy will contain, especially with the announcement of WorldCat Local about a month or so ago. Talking about WorldCat Local, I highly recommend listening to the Library 2.0 Gang Podcast on “Library System Suppliers view of OCLC Web-scale.”

The OCLC Review Board of Shared Data Creation & Stewardship has posted the presentation slides and a recording from their update to Members Council on May 18. I haven’t been able to connect to their streaming server, but the PDF shows, that among other things, they have recommended to “Formally withdraw the proposed policy” on WorldCat record use.

This is great news for those who were very concerned about the proposed policy and the process that was originally used to try to put it in place. They do say that a policy is needed but stress that it should not be this policy, They have also said that the Nov. 16, 1987 “Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records” should be kept in place until a new policy is created. They have further recommendations about the direction of this that I believe are well reason and well thought out. Key among them is the recommended direction of:

Devise a process for drafting and maintaining a new policy that:
• Includes formal participation by members of the Global Council, the OCLC Board, and the OCLC Strategic Leadership Team
• Incorporates input from the broader community
• Recognizes the complexity of the information ecosystem in which OCLC and its members operate
• Is transparent

and that the new policy should:

• Be based on clearly articulated principles
• Impart confidence to members and partners building strategies predicated on WorldCat
• Support innovation

I am extremely happy that the Review Board has come to these conclusions and I hope that OCLC decides to follow them and creates a fair policy using a transparent process that does indeed support innovation. Three cheers to Jennifer Younger and the rest of the review board members!

I am happy to report that three major independent library automation user groups have agreed to co-endorse the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) Statement on the Proposed OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records, dated May 11, 2009. The user groups represented are Ex Libris Users of North America (ELUNA), Unicorn Users Group International (UUGI) and Customers of Dynix, Inc. (CODI), Combined they represent over 2500 libraries. This is the first time I am aware of different library automation user groups coming together to co-endorse any statement or position. As a member of the ELUNA Steering Committee I am also happy to say that it came together very quickly. It is apparent that many librarians and organizations representing librarians are very concerned about the proposed policy. The statement reads:

The leadership of three library vendor user communities in North America have agreed to co-endorse the the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) Statement on the Proposed OCLC Policy for Use and
Transfer of WorldCat Records, dated May 11, 2009 (http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement-oclcrecorduse.htm).

The Ex Libris Users of North America has 313 institutional members, including consortia, in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Carribean and represents approximately 1950 libraries in these countries that license Ex Libris’ library applications and systems.

The Unicorn Users Group International (UUGI) represents 250 institutional members, including consortia, in the United States and Canada representing libraries that use the SIRSI Unicorn ILS.

The Customers of Dynix, Inc. (CODI) represents 532 institutional member libraries, including consortia, in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom representing libraries that use the Dynix ILS.

Pascal V. Calarco
ELUNA Steering Committee Chair, 2009-2010
University of Notre Dame/Michiana Academic Library Consortium
Notre Dame, IN

Carla Clark,
Chair, UUGI
Noel Memorial Library
Louisiana State University in Shreveport
Shreveport, LA

Colleen Medling
CODI President
Salt Lake County Library Services
Salt Lake City, UT

The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has released it’s “Statement on the Proposed OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.” I think it is good to see them issue a statement on this. I wish it was worded a little stronger, but it still calls for OCLC to start-a-new which would be a great thing. I hope, and expect, that we see more library organizations weigh in on this.

Towards the end of last week, OCLC announced a “quick start” version of the OCLC WorldCat Local service. I was at ELAG last week a and traveling so I didn’t have a lot of time to look at it until today when I watched the Webinar they offered. There are really two separate, but related things going on here. One is that they are providing a limited version of Local WorldCat at no additional cost to First search Libraries. They are calling it WorldCat Local “quick start”. I think that is a silly name so I’m calling it Mini-Local World Cat. The other part of the news is that they are expanding Local WorldCat to include more traditional Integrated Library Systems (ILS) functionality. While both a significant announcements, I think the latter part is more game changing.

First, lets look at the examine Mini-Local World Cat. This new service “provides a single search result that delivers your library’s resources and those of the world’s libraries.” It is basically another discovery layer that can be used on top, more likely at this point, in addition to your ILS. It doesn’t have all of the features of WorldCat Local, but it has most of the features a single library would want. According to the FAQ, some features that the “full” version of WorldCat Local has that the mini version does not include:

• Interoperability with multiple ILSs
• Visibility of group/consortium-level collections in search results
• Interoperability with consortial borrowing systems to surface smart delivery options to searchers.
• Ability to display branch-level holdings when Local Holdings Records are present.
• Full suite of statistical reports.
• Expanded search functionality coming in July 2009:
  • Search electronic content in OCLC and non-OCLC services
  • Integrate results from WorldCat and your library’s licensed content services in a single result list
  • Initially, 100 of the most widely used, licensed resources from multiple providers will be active on the service, with more databases and other materials being added each month

.

What does this mean for libraries? I’m not sure really, but I do think it does take aim at some of the discovery products that interact with the ILS. Proprietary products such as Encore and Primo as well as Open Source projects like BlackLight, VUFind and xC are now on notice that another competitor is in the marketplace with a great price point and because of OCLC’s monopoly on library metadata, it is going to be hard, if not impossible, for other products to offer some of the functionality that the mini Local Worldcat can (and this is even more the case for the full version). If my library can get a modern discovery tool at no additional cost with the power of the WorldCat data behind it, why should I pay extra for something like Encore or go to the trouble of installing, hosting, and maintaining VUFind?

The other portion of this announcement is the part about expanding Local Worldcat to include more traditional ILS features like circulation and acquisitions and moving them into the cloud. As Karen Combs points out, this isn’t really a surprise. They have been doing a number of things building in this direction. In many respects, this also isn’t a new idea. Ex Libris announced they wanted to do this two years ago with their new URM product. The difference is OCLC has the data to make this work and with the proposed changes to the OCLC WorldCat record use and transfer policy, they may not be able to get it. As Andrew Pace says, this is “a first step to WorldCat Local and to a truly next-generation cooperative library management service.”

In many ways having something like OCLC do this could be a good thing for libraries. Very few libraries are in finical position to do things that OCLC can. This type of innovation may be what libraries need to survive and thrive into the future. But at the same time, danger abounds. With OCLC controlling the data and the software, choices will become limited and OCLC may not always be on the fore-front of innovation. If this move servilely inhibits innovation by the vendor and Open Source community, we may find ourselves in trouble. As Tim Spalding points out, this “move casts new light on [OCLC's] Policy defenses. OCLC isn’t ‘curating’ library records; it’s leveraging them to enter a new market. WorldCat isn’t a ’switching mechanism’ to local catalogs. It will replace them.”

Two things really are loaming over this announcement that I think will have to be addressed at some point. One is the record use policy creating an illegal monopoly? In many ways I think what they are doing, while in a smaller venue, is more monopolistic like then say what Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer. The second issue is OCLC’s status as a nonprofit membership cooperative. As Josh Hadro writes, citing Carl Grant, in his Tough Questions Emerge on OCLC’s Competitive Advantage and Data Policies piece, “OCLC seems remarkably and increasingly similar to the for-profit vendors in the marketplace.” The non-profit status allows OCLC a huge finical benefit compared to companies such as Ex Libris or III. Between the non-profit and record control, I have to imagine someone will call the bluff and bring some sort of legal challenge. I don’t know what a result of such a challenge will be, but it will be interesting. I think libraries ought to look at what giving all this power to OCLC will mean for libraries in the long run. Not just from a monopolization standpoint, but also from an outsourcing situation. Do we want to outsource many of our core back-office systems to OCLC and the cloud? What are the ramifications of such a decision. Individual libraries should look at this closely before jumping aboard the OCLC cloud bandwagon. In some cases maybe it is worth the risk, but in many cases it may not be and only by evaluating alll the issues surrounding this will libraries be able to make an informed choice.

As they say, may you live in interesting times. This is certainly an interesting time in library technology.

I don’t think it was really surprising to anyone that PALINET & SOLINET merger has been approved (PDF). Maybe the initial announcement of the plan was, but at this point I think most of us following it were not surprised by the vote (95% in favor).

I don’t know any more about the merger than any other outsider, but I think the combined PALINET & SOLINET, which will be called Lyrasis, will be a force to be reckoned with. As Library Journal points out, their “combined resources, shared expertise, and improved operating efficiencies to achieve rapid implementation of new programs; greater consortia savings opportunities; extended networking and collaboration among members; innovative technology solutions; and an expanded education curriculum/”

What I wonder is how with this combined mega-organization effect other Regional Service Providers/Cooperatives such as NELINET, NYLINK and MLC? Lyrasis’ vision statement calls for a “regional base and national scope” and says that Lyrasis “will be an acknowledged leader – regionally and nationally – in innovation, collaboration, and effective support for libraries and cultural heritage organizations in helping them fulfill their education, information, and community-building missions.” (emphasis mine)

With online learning and new ICTs they will be able to offer training and other programs and services nationally. Will the smaller regions be able to compete in this environment? Long gone are the days of being the middle-man between OCLC and member libraries was sufficient for these service providers. While it may still be a significant function of regional providers, additional revenue streams and business models are necessary. Will the smaller regions be able to do this alone, or will they have to join with each other, or merger in with a larger group such as Lyrasis? Only time will tell, but there are many challenges (and opportunities) ahead for these organizations.

There really wasn’t much new reported by Library Journal about the WorlCat Record Use policy discussion at ALA MW but it is still worth a read. I wish I could have stayed around Denver to attend the session. One thing that I found interesting is that Karen Calhoun is reported to have “clarified that the FAQ was indeed part of the policy.” This is an interesting development because the way I and many others read what is up there it does not appear to be, I have asked via a comment on Karen Calhoun’s blog post about the session to confirm that this is so. Karen also posted the slides from her portion of the session, Creating and Sustaining Communities Around Shared Data: The Case of OCLC, on SlideShare. I looked through them briefly and I think they are worth taking a look at if you are interested in this issue (and if you are a librarian, IMHO you should be).

Calhoun is quoted in LJ as saying OCLC regrets that the “value of participatory decision-making nearly seriously enough.” I am happy to see OCLC openly discussing this new policy (which is now set to be put into place 3Q 2009). I think that they now have a review process in place is a big positive. Obviously, I (and I’m guessing in retrospect OCLC) wish this was done from the beginning. However hindsight is 20/20 and it is better late then never. OCLC pushing back the policy implementation in order to take time to take and consider input is a huge positive. I’m sure many of us won’t agree with the whole policy in the end, but I will feel much better about the situation with a more open discussion then was originally taking place.

I am typically not a fan of online petitions, but Elaine Sanchez has created a petition that includes a good summary of the situation with the upcoming new OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. I have blogged about this previously so my thoughts are on record and I’m not going to rehash all of them here. I believe that many people at OCLC really want to do the right thing for libraries (both member and non-member) but I don’t think the policy as currently formed does that. I also am still a little dismayed with the fact that they put some things in the FAQ that clarify things a little or imply that libraries will have the right to do this or that, but they don’t put them into the policy. Remember, the policy is the legal document, not the FAQ.

Elaine Sanchez’s petition does not call for the policy mot to be changed. Instead it calls for OCLC to “[f]orm a truly representative group of OCLC members, non-members, and other cataloging service entities to review the 1987 policy in light of the current environment.” Even if you don’t want to sign the petition, it is worth reading for its summary of the situation.

Jonathan Rochkind has an interesting post on his blog about “OCLC, and what we lose without openness (a True Story).” In his post, he talks about how if OCLC was more open, with both its data and its software, that we would see greater innovation in the area of using bibliographic records. I think this is no doubt true for OCLC, but OCLC isn’t unique in this. I think we would see greater innovation in, say the Aleph integrated library system, if Ex Libris opened the code.

The question Jonathan contemplates is how can a more open OCLC survive in this open environment. If competitors arise from this open environment, what happens to OCLC if this competition seriously cuts into there revenues to such an extent that OCLC folds. While I don’t think this would be the necessary, or even likely end of OCLC, I think it is a fair question to ask. Johnathon uses the metaphor of the Goose and the Golden Egg, except he changes it a little. In his open environment, we have innovative golden eggs all over the place. In the closed environment, all of the golden eggs are in one basket. As long as we don’t drop the basket, we are OK – maybe not as innovative as can be, but some what safe. I think this is a really useful analogy to Open Movements.

Keeping our golden eggs in one basket is safe until someone comes by and tries to take them or a hard wind blows and knocks us over. They only have to deal with taking down one enemy. Whereas conquering many people to get all the eggs is much harder. The problem with this day-and -age is that libraries (and OCLC) are not in their own protected world. There are storms and competition from the outside from the likes of Google and Amazon. They are looking for our eggs, or at least they will knock us out of the way to get to wherever it is they are going. If our eggs are all in once place, they make not only an easier target, but a more lucrative one. Without innovation, we will ultimate be left with an empty basket.

Now I am not arguing that OCLC has to go all open, but they need to make innovation outside of OCLC as easy as possible, and the more open they are, the more open to innovation they will be. While OCLC has opened up some areas with their OCLC Grid Services, I would like to see more of that and less barriers around the data. Libraries, especially, should not have to jump through any hoops, even big wide open ones, to innovate. While, as Jonathan points out, OCLC has been doing many wonderful and innovative things, they are but one organization, and they do not have unlimited funds so they need to prioritize. However it is a given that their priorities can not possibly be exactly the same as all of the diverse member libraries. The membership is just too diverse and too large for that to be possible.

Richard Wallis of Talis produced a podcast with Vice President WorldCat and Metadata Services, Karen Calhoun and Senior Programme Officer, Roy Tennant about the new WorldCat Record Use Policy. The podcast is about an hour long and Richard asks some of his own questions as well as some sent in by others. Overall there wasn’t a lot of new stuff about policy specifics for people that have been following the controversy. However both Karen and Roy provided additional information about what OCLC’s thought process was in creating the new policy. For that reason I’d say even if you have been following the issue, if you have a chance to listen to the podcast, it is probably worth your time. If you haven’t been following it closely, I think it can get you up to speed, at least from OCLC’s perspective on what some of the issues are.

One of the key things that Karen and Roy repeated a few times during the podcast (and OCLC people have mentioned previously in other venues) is that the goal with this policy is to drive traffic to libraries museums and archives. They also have repeated that they hope it will make it easier for libraries, museums, and archives to use their data. It is not that I am not hearing them on this second point, but I still do not see how this “tiger’s role (territorial and instinctive)” approach accomplishes this.

I am guessing Karen and Roy would say that this is accomplished via the oft mentioned Proposal for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records form where you can ask for permission to use WorldCat records. I think that answer would be a bit of a stretch. I’d rather have the rights to use records explicit in the policy instead of having to ask for permission. While having OCLC having a method to responding to requests is no doubt an improvement, the existence of a form by itself doesn’t do anything. It will be more of an issue as to what happens when a proposal is submitted. To this end, OCLC has been consistent saying that the intent of the form was not to be restrictive and they want to approve as many of these requests as they can. During the podcast Karen said that “Our hope is that we will be approving these things left and right.” I hope this ends up to be true, however, I believe the need to submit a proposal will be a hindrance to innovation. If someone has an idea that needs to be hashed out and they don’t know how OCLC will respond once they get a clearer idea, they may just drop it altogether. While I am willing to take Roy, Karen, and others from OCLC at their word, I am still not real comfortable with this approach. I’d rather see something much more open from the beginning. Despite my uncomfortableness, I am hopeful that OCLC will approve these requests “left and right.”

Richard asked a series of questions about how copyright-able the WorldCat database is. As many of you know the courts have found that a database of facts is not copyright-able in the USA. Karen mentioned that she was not a copyright expert but she thought the copyright was based on the compilation and that OCLC has invested a large effort into maintaining the database. However, the amount of sweat used during the creation and maintenance of a database is not by itself suffice for copyright. Karen did say that she was not a copyright expert and offered to respond to this on her Metalogue blog after asking OCLC legal council about the copyright status of WorldCat as a whole and individual records. I look forward to there are response. If it is true that the copyright is based on the compilation, then any individual record or group of records would not be copyrighted.*

One of my complaints about the policy has been the ability to import records into commercial search and discover tools such as Endeca or Primo. Richard asked about this using Aquabrowser as an example. Karen said that she felt this was “perfectly acceptable” and that “the policy is silent [...] it has no conditions or restrictions whatsoever.” Roy added that it would not make a difference if the service was hosted by a commercial vendor. I am glad that Karen and Roy think this would not be an issue and that it is “perfectly acceptable.” however the policy clearly states:

An OCLC Member or a Non-OCLC Member may Transfer WorldCat Records of its own Holdings to a Third-Party who has entered into a separate agreement with OCLC authorizing the Third-Party’s receipt of the WorldCat Records (D1b)

B14 says that

“Transfer” means conveyance to another by exchange, merger, sharing, gift, providing the capability to download or otherwise electronically copy or any other means.

I don’t see how OCLC can say the policy “ has no conditions or restrictions whatsoever. Unless there in an exception I don’t see in this policy, the wording doesn’t allow this without some sort of agreement between the third party with OCLC. As Karen has mentioned in her blog post, this is a legal document. I am not comfortable with just hearing from them that this is allowed – I want to see it in the policy. Karen may believe that it is “perfectly acceptable” but maybe her successor will not.

Related to this are issues with sharing records to individual library patrons that use tools such as Zotero, RefWorks and Endnote. As I mentioned before, they have agreed to remove “any individual” from the definition of a third party which is a huge improvement. The current version of the policy on their Web site has removed this but they have not added any specific wording in the policy allowing libraries to share the data with individuals. While it is true that they say this is allowed in the FAQ, the FAQ is not the legal document. The policy is. Maybe I am being nit-picky about this, but if OCLC wants to have a new legal policy governing the use of WorldCat records they should make the policy more explicit about this.

A number of librarians have been concerned about what this new policy does to their ability to use Z39.50 servers. When asked about this in the Podcast, Karen said that they are “not necessarily asking libraries to police their Z39.50 connections,. However they are encouraging libraries to alert us of [infringing] usages.” As with the use of records for individual use this is not explicit in the policy although it is addressed in the FAQ.

Many libraries have shared, or would like to share, their records with the Open Library. When Richard asked about this Karen said that they would like to “have to an agreement with OpenLibrary that helps drive searches to libraries” but it sounded like they were concerned about some of the statements from Open Library. Based on what Karen said in the podcast, I think there is little chance that if someone filled out request to send their records to Open Library it would be approved course, I am not sure the Open Library would take them anyway with the “viral” license attached to the records.

One of the things discussed in the blogosphere was if OCLC should break apart and become partly cooperative and partly commercial. Karen said that OCLC has no plans to move that way to which Richard pointed out that OCLC owns commercial companies in Europe and elsewhere. Karen said she was inadequately prepared to answer this question (which makes sense, after all she is not an international trade lawyer after all). It is an important one to consider however. In the USA, we often here that OCLC is a cooperative, but it really isn’t that way for all libraries around the world. As with the copyright issue, Karen offers to try to find out more information about this status and post it to her blog.

Roy’s closing thoughts were

I just want to make it clear that really we are trying to make it easier for our member institutions to use their data in interesting new ways to become more effective, more efficient. I think we’re backing that up with real services. We are exposing their data to them in useful ways that can be processed by software so I think this is a good direction for us and I think the new policy is a part of that direction.

to which Karen added that they

tried to make the policy as open as possible.

Well, obviously they didn’t make it as open as possible or they would have done just that; made it truly open. If that was really their goal, we would have a much more open policy. However I do understand the concerns of OCLC. I just don’t think this approach is in the long term interest of OCLC members and other libraries. Metadata hoarding is not going to be a viable long term business model for libraries.

I believe Roy and other OCLC employees when they say that want to make it possible for libraries to “use their data in interesting new ways to become more effective, more efficient.” Roy and the other people I know who work for OCLC really do care about libraries. I just don’t see how the policy does this. While the current people speaking on behalf of OCLC may want to approve as many WorldCat record use requests as possible, they may not always be the ones making the decisions. This is why I want as much of these rights enumerated in the policy, instead of hiding behind a request form that “OCLC reserves the right to accept or reject any proposed Use or Transfer of WorldCat Records which, in OCLC’s reasonably exercised discretion, does not conform to the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records.”

* At least OCLC would not be the copyright holder except possibly for the records that they have created. Of course, this all depends if a MARC record is copyright-able – something that is up for debate.