Family Man Librarian » oclc

OCLC tries to checkmate

FamManLib — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:00:27 +0000

This past week I heard rumors about pending changes to OCLC’s policy governing use of records contributed to WorldCat. There was every reason to be concerned about these changes even before the details of what they contain were “leaked.” I just finished reading a post by Terry Reese on this topic, and Terry makes very good points. Basically, based on what I’ve read, I agree that OCLC is trying to checkmate the likes of LibraryThing and others by monopolizing control over library-generated metadata. Oh right, I forgot, this is “for the benefit of its members.” Ugh. Please, folks, wake up and smell the coffee on this. I find it interesting that Terry raises comparisons with Microsoft (and AT&T), something that I’ve done many times in the past.

License-free bibliographic data [Updated]

FamManLib — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:12:44 +0000

Thanks to a discussion on the oss4lib list, I was made aware of this post by Karl Fogel about the importance of insisting “that bibliographic data be license-free.” His comment is in the context of the recently released draft report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. Karl recommends that the open comment phase to the general public for this report be an opportunity for as many people as possible to support the principle of license-free bibliographic data. A finger is pointed at OCLC here. Sounds like a worthy cause.

[Updated 12/12/2007: This a.m. I read the most recent Thingology blog post from Tim Spalding and lo and behold, it was more about the topic of license-free bibliographic data. He points to an online petition started by Aaron Swartz of Open Library fame. I'm going to add my name to it and I encourage anyone else who supports this view to do so as well.]

Answers to Roy Tennant’s questions

FamManLib — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:01:14 +0000

Several times over the past year or so, I have offered up criticisms of OCLC. OCLC is a staple of the library world, especially here in the U.S., but its reach is global and it is expanding all the time. The simplest or most concise way of expressing my criticisms is to say that I think OCLC is the Microsoft of the library world.Roy Tennant, a respected colleague who recently joined OCLC, ~~and~~ has taken issue with my criticisms a couple of times. His latest response poses several good questions and I’ve purposely taken my time in considering how to respond. What follows are statements or questions excerpted from Roy’s lengthy comment on a previous post. Please be sure to read the whole thing.1.) “We’re a not-for-profit membership organization. We’re not Google, for cryin’ out loud, or Microsoft, or Innovative Interfaces, or (name your favorite commercial company here).”OCLC is a not-for-profit membership organization, sure. But in my view, that is true in name only. OCLC behaves in ways that are similar to the businesses you name, and more than that, it has a growing monopoly over library data and services that I think makes a legitimate comparison to say, Microsoft’s monopoly and control of the OS and most of the critical desktop applications we use. Microsoft, Google, and others are for-profit, yes. But I still believe there are legitimate comparisons. Especially when I think of the control ceded to OCLC of the data we librarians create — control that inhibits, rather than fosters, libraries’ use of their own data for innovative applications that serve their own needs.2.) “But I still have a hard time figuring out what your root beef is — is it that you object to the cost of particular services? What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed? Would you prefer that libraries NOT have an organization that instead of being focused on making a buck actually plows the investments of individual libraries into research and products that leverage the benefits to all libraries?”I’m not sure why it is so hard to figure out. I’ve stated quite plainly what my “root beef(s)” are, including OCLC’s control of library (MARC) data, its growing monopoly of library data and services, what I believe are high costs of many of its services. I’ve also made it very clear that in spite of repeatedly being told that OCLC is “our” (implying all libraries) organization, that it is a membership driven organization, I for one do not feel that OCLC is “my” organization and I never have. And I resent being told that it is. Now, technically speaking, my library is an OCLC member but if I had my druthers we wouldn’t be. Why? Because I see very little value for the amount of money spent, and because I believe we can get better service for cheaper by doing things on our own.3.) “So I’m grasping at straws here to understand how we’ve hurt you so.”
Roy, with all due respect, it seems a little silly for you to think that you (OCLC) have “hurt” me in some way. The implication in that statement is that I am miffed about something, that this is personal, that OCLC has disappointed or rejected me in some way. That implication sort of demeans what I believe are legitimate and objective criticisms of the organization.4.) “How many of your postings pillory vendors owned by investment firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them?”Well, since you ask, probably just as many as those that have openly criticized OCLC. And unlike several other prominent vendor naysayers in the library field, I have worked for one of those “vendors owned by investments firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them.” Having had that experience, I can say that your broad strokes characterization is way too simplistic and frankly, unbalanced. That is not to say that such vendors are without flaw. There are very good reasons why I no longer work for such a vendor. I have lots of reasons to be critical of vendors but one of the important lessons I gained from working in that environment is that things aren’t so black and white as I used to think, i.e. libraries=good, vendors=bad. I found that there are many very thoughtful, innovative librarians working in vendor settings who care every bit as much, if not more, about the things that you and I care about, who want to see libraries succeed, who support and encourage professional involvement. (Ironically, in my experience, vendors support professional involvement to a degree unmatched by any library I have ever worked for). Vendors, like libraries, also have more than their fair share of incompetence, inefficiencies, and dysfunctional organizations and practices. Frankly, OCLC is every bit as much of a vendor in my view as a company like Innovative Interfaces or Ex Libris. OCLC has done, and continues to do, many very good things. But it also does many things badly, just like any other vendor (or library, for that matter).5.) “I can think of no better time to come together around common problems and build common solutions. Can you? What would your world be without OCLC? Even if you think we do nothing for you now, wait three years and ask yourself the same question.”I agree that the vision you articulate sounds wonderful and desirable. The big difference between you and me, though, is that I do not see OCLC as the only or main vehicle for achieving that vision. In fact, I strongly distrust OCLC (obviously). I think that placing all of our eggs in the OCLC basket, to make OCLC the savior of the library world, is a very flawed approach. I think there are many very exciting technological and functional developments occurring at the local level or in open communities of practice. I prefer to work in those environments and to invest in those areas, and not leave it up to OCLC.

Sick, sick, sick

FamManLib — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:29:45 +0000

I have been sick for a week now and I am sick of it. I wish there was a way that I could build up my immune system. All of the kids except Keegan have been sick — for the second time in as many weeks — as well.In other news, in the past three days I received comments on old posts. Once upon a time I used a WordPress plugin that automatically turned off comments on old posts. In the last WordPress upgrade, I quit using it. I’m glad I did, now. It constantly amazes me that an obscure blog such as this can still ~~generate or~~ reach people on the Internet.One recent comment in particular, from colleague Roy Tennant, deserves more attention and a thoughtful response. Roy takes issue with my criticisms of his employer, OCLC, and asks some really good questions. I hope to provide a response soon, in a separate post.

Right on target

FamManLib — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:02:26 +0000

Call me cranky. Say I am just not willing to write anything positive about this organization. Whatever. I inwardly cheered when I read Tim Spalding’s (LibraryThing) critique of OCLC’s latest report. It is right on target. By way of contrast, Andrew Pace gushes about how “this is our report; we paid for it” and how we should be proud of OCLC for producing it and making it freely available. Gag. This is NOT our (the entire world of libraries) report! And why should we (again, the implication is that ‘we’ encompasses all librarians) be thrilled with a glossy report that cost how much? to produce, and a weird new logo that cost how much? for someone to dream up? Ugh. All I can see are dollar signs when most libraries have relatively little dollars to spend.

Tim makes a more cogent point that the report makes no mention of LibraryThing or any of its competitors, yet purports to be a report that discusses social networks. That is pretty strange, I agree.

Why am I being so negative? Well, for one thing, I think we (yes, I am implying all librarians) are way too ready to swallow any old codswallop presented to us in a nice package. Let’s be a lot more discerning and critical for a change. Also, and more precisely, I strongly object to the idea that keeps getting pushed by prominent techie leaders that OCLC represents us (implying, all libraries). It represents many, but not all.

Responses to OCLC criticism

FamManLib — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:04:54 +0000

A few people including Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) and Carol Ou commented on a recent post I wrote comparing OCLC to Microsoft. Roy Tennant responded to this post on the hangingtogether blog, written by former RLG - now OCLC employees. Roy also responded to Carol Ou’s idea about FRBRizing local library catalog records for free. I thought I’d repost Carol’s original comment here along with Roy’s reply because I think this dialog deserves more attention and thought. Having it in the comments to that post may have effectively squashed the conversation:

Here is a portion of Carol’s original comment:

…One way OCLC could convince me that they’re truly a member organization though, with the best interests of libraries at heart, would be to FRBRize all their member libraries’ individual library catalogs for free. And I don’t mean via WorldCat local, but in analyzing our records per their algorithm and then handing those records back to us to do what we will. After all, the majority of the original bib records were created by individual library catalogers, and our fees certainly helped pay for any R&D. How about it, OCLC?

And here is Roy’s response:

That is an interesting idea, and one that may be worth pursuing if we can determine what, if anything, you would be able to do with these “FRBRized records” once they were produced for you. One of the problems is that our present integrated library systems (ILS) are mostly not set up to deal with such grouped records. We can’t simply hand you a smaller set of records than you gave us, that would be mostly useless. You need to have a system that can take advantage of FRBR relationships. In other words, although you can find out right now which items you have that may be related by using the OCLC xISBN service (see http://worldcat.org/affiliate/webservices/xisbn/app.jsp ), it is really more complicated than that. You may need to have a system that can deal with a grouped display but also allow someone to see the individual items that are part of that group. So although the initial idea is intriguing, I think it requires a bit more thought to be something that we could consider as a service to provide to our members. But I really want to know if this is something you could put to work today in your ILS, so if it is, let me know directly at roy_tennant@oclc.org. Thanks!

How about it, any readers who have an opinion on this proposal?

Staying current: a survey response

FamManLib — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:44:35 +0000

Ann Ercelawn, a dear friend and co-moderator of the SERIALST discussion list, posted a survey on that list yesterday that asked for responses to a series of questions relating to how we keep current within the LIS field. Below is the response I sent her. It’s not as detailed or complete as it should be but I was in a hurry

1) What are the websites that you find most useful?

I find that I rarely go to a library-related website anymore, instead relying on RSS feeds. And if a library-related website doesn’t offer an RSS feed, I am highly unlikely to refer to it much again.

2) What listservs do you find indispensable?

Here, too, I am finding myself really paring down my participation in listservs. I’m still subscribed to SERIALST and I also pay attention to SFX-DISCUSS-L, LIB-STATS, LIS-E-JOURNALS, and ERIL-L. That’s about it, though.

3) What are the most important formal publications (in print or online) that you read on a regular basis?

Serials Review, LCATS, D-LIB, Library Journal. Increasingly, though, I am not reading formal publications as much, instead, as in the case of websites and listservs, relying on blogs, wikis, and RSS feeds to obtain the information about what’s going on in my areas of interest. I am much more selective about what parts of formal publications I read.

4) What are the top 5-8 blogs that you read?

Walt at Random, Thingology (LibraryThing’s ideas blog), Roy Tennant’s Digital Libraries, Peter Scott’s Library Blog, One Big Library, Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog, LISNews.org, Information Wants to Be Free, Hectic Pace.

5) Are there podcasts that you listen to on a regular basis?

Not really, but ones I have listened to and/or recommend include Library Geeks by Dan Chudnov, and the podcasts output as part of the SirsiDynix Institute.

6) What other resources do you consult or recommend?

I am a huge fan of RSS because it saves me so much time and money. Use a free RSS reader like Google Reader or Bloglines and begin collecting library-related feeds. You won’t be sorry.

OCLC: the Microsoft of the Library World?

FamManLib — Tue, 29 May 2007 18:44:57 +0000

Recently Roy Tennant joined OCLC and explained his reasons for taking this step in a post on the Library Journal: Digital Libraries blog. Roy is someone whom I admire and respect, a visionary and great communicator about technology and libraries. He has done, and continues to do, a huge amount of great things.

When I saw Roy’s posting I decided (maybe foolishly) to write a comment on it (see it here). In that comment I mentioned that while I respected his decision, I didn’t really agree that “OCLC is us” and I used that forum to label OCLC as the Microsoft of the library world. I had also used that characterization in a comment posted to The FRBR Blog a few days before. This drew the ire of at least one OCLC staff member who commented on how easy it was to use labels.

I have thought this way about OCLC for years. It isn’t something new that I came up with recently. To me, OCLC is an entity always to be reckoned with in terms of library technology in the same way that Microsoft is all-pervasive in personal computing generally. That doesn’t mean that all that they do or that their business model as a whole is laudable and always good for libraries. There are other comparisons that seem to fit, including what I think are over-priced services that most libraries seem to blithely accept without critical evaluation of whether they truly meet our needs, a fierce protectiveness of intellectual property that really doesn’t belong to them (in my opinion) in the first place but instead belongs with individual libraries who’ve actually created that intellectual content.

I think there are pros and cons in evaluating OCLC. My position, such as it is, is simply that we as a library community should be wary of monopolies of any sort, that we do not just accept without questioning the premise that OCLC’s approach is the best or in the best interests of libraries, and that we value diversity in terms of options for systems and services available to us in fulfilling the missions of our individual libraries.

Anyone have a job for Walt Crawford? [Updated]

FamManLib — Tue, 29 May 2007 18:13:22 +0000

[Updated 5/29/2007: I did something unbelievably stupid and deleted the original version of this post accidentally. Here it is again thanks to Google's cache.]

This morning, Walt Crawford made public the fact that he no longer has a job with OCLC. I fail to understand the whys and wherefores here. All I know is, I wish I could hire him myself! If you or someone you know has a job available for which he might be a good fit, would you please get in touch with him?

WorldCat Identities

FamManLib — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:35:22 +0000

Like many others I am really intrigued by the recently unveiled WorldCat Identities project (http://orlabs.oclc.org/Identities/). Just for fun I entered a few family members’ names. For example, works by or about my grandfather, Stanley McCallum, are mentioned here and ones by my brother, Kevin, are shown here. Ok, maybe it’s just a librarian-geeky kind of thing, but I think it’s cool.