<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Georgia","serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1F497D">I'm of the same mind. Although IR's were valuable to what must be a tiny subset of OCLC's users, at best they amounted to a clumsy workaround for the kind of access
we had to institutional data in RLIN. OCLC isn't going to give us what we want. As Francis says, we should look elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#31849B">Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie@folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lapka, Francis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 14 May 2015 10:28<br>
<b>To:</b> dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">Yesterday’s webinar on the demise of Institutions Records and the transition to Local Bibliographic Data was primarily a Q-and-A. Compared to the discussion that Yale catalogers had with an OCLC rep in April, there
seemed much less ambiguity that OCLC has no plans to provide access to the local data of any institution other than your own, no matter how much we say that this is important to us. Moderators held firm to the talking point: OCLC data suggests that its users
don’t care about IRs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">It’s tempting to think that the OCLC data is somehow wrong, but I’m inclined to accept their conclusion at face value: users who care about copy-specific descriptions generally don’t see OCLC as a useful discovery
tool. So is there much point in investing energy trying to make OCLC fulfill a role for which it is ill-suited? If we want a mechanism that enables searching of copy-specific data across institutions, we should probably look elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif"">Francis<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Francis Lapka · Catalog Librarian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Yale Center for British Art<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">203.432.9672 ·
<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>