[DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

Tue Apr 7 09:26:43 MDT 2015

"Fool me once ..."--Elizabeth O'Keefe has put *very* succinctly what I was
composing in my head when notice came that a new posting had arrived.

More extensively: The OCLC business model will always seek the minimum of
data that is usually sufficient to distinguish manifestations, with a bias
towards errors of conflation in cases of doubt. We, on the other hand, know
that distinctions of manifestation based on seemingly minor data
(fingerprints, perhaps?) may prove, in individual cases, significant, and
in aggregate a more accurate representation of the complexity of the
phenomena that our work accounts for. Even within the scope of a
manifestation one may note a feature that is not item-level, and perhaps
worth recording (e.g. OCLC #1687316). This has nothing to do with truly
item-level information in the construction of a catalog, as historically
important as that may be in itself.

OCLC will always have the power to sell itself over our heads, so to speak,
and in that context our concerns sink without a trace. Alison has been
addressing the question as one with a *much* longer future in this game
than I have (as I hope for both our sakes), so the question will be: Can a
boutique version of the database be developed out of reach of 900-pound
gorillas--"boutique" I write, because that how the gorillas will see it.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe <eokeefe at themorgan.org>
wrote:

> It would seem to be a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice
> ..."
>
> Liz O'Keefe
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>  There is a timely and closely related posting by Karen Smith-Yoshimura
>> (of OCLC research):
>>
>> http://hangingtogether.org/?p=5091
>>
>>
>>
>> See especially the sections on “Sharing data in centralized and
>> distributed models” and “Importance of provenance,” which discuss the idea
>> of using OCLC data as the *database of record* for local catalogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> The idea of such a dependency on OCLC for special collections metadata
>> makes me uncomfortable. I’d be happier looking to resources such as (an
>> improved) ESTC as databases of record, even if this option presents greater
>> challenges for development and sustainability.
>>
>>
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
>> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Ted P Gemberling
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 1:31 PM
>> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation
>> of OCLC's institutional records program)
>>
>>
>>
>> Francis,
>>
>> I would be pretty nervous about trying to create our own database,
>> independent of OCLC. Unless we are in a position to buy all of OCLC’s
>> records on old books and then revise all of them. I think Allison’s idea of
>> linking the annotations on Bibframe to “appropriate” OCLC records is more
>> realistic. I realize that means we would still have to wade through all the
>> duplicate records to find “appropriate” ones. But after all, that’s what
>> we’ve been doing for quite awhile. And since there are a limited number of
>> new editions of pre-1801 books yet to be cataloged, this problem should
>> diminish over time. Admittedly there are still lots of non-English-language
>> records being added, but I generally ignore those unless all the English
>> records are particularly poor, in my effort to figure out how to describe a
>> book.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Gemberling
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
>> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 8:55 AM
>> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation
>> of OCLC's institutional records program)
>>
>>
>>
>> I partially agree with your suggestion, Allison (the big picture bit);
>> but linking to OCLC for edition (Manifestation) descriptions would be less
>> than ideal (see my previous message).
>>
>>
>>
>> *If* BIBFRAME succeeds in becoming the standard for the representation
>> of library data on the web, then RBMS should work to develop the schema it
>> needs within the BIBFRAME framework. Although the current BIBFRAME model
>> represents copy-specific descriptions as Annotations, it’s my impression
>> that they are reconsidering this decision; that is, they may revise the
>> model to recognize Items (/Holdings) as a proper resource. See:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1501&L=bibframe&T=0&P=13353
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.loc.gov_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FA2-3Dind1501-26L-3Dbibframe-26T-3D0-26P-3D13353&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=Q3oaXUaHkwFGbSWtKg0LXXjqMWZrH8HuorCA_7T0UQU&s=grTf_ijjP4W3UvUKyk9G0v3ZzGop0zabNC9SMN4YhRk&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, we should definitely push for a schema (in BIBFRAME, or elsewhere if
>> need be) with data elements that precisely match the copy-specific
>> information our community uses. I’d be happy to contribute to such work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
>> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Allison Jai O'Dell
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:08 PM
>> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
>> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of
>> OCLC's institutional records program)
>>
>>
>>
>> I hesitate to send this out to the DCRM list, but since we're on the
>> subject...
>>
>>
>>
>> The IR thread has surfaced a well-known problem: that rare materials
>> users need better access to detailed and copy-specific information -- and
>> they need it from an aggregated, Web-based portal, not through everybody's
>> individual catalogs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not think that we, the DCRM community, need to rely on OCLC or
>> WorldCat to achieve this end.  At a 2014 Bib Standards meeting, I suggested
>> an alternate solution:
>>
>>
>>
>> RBMS should develop a schema for the copy-specific and detailed
>> information that rare materials libraries aim to capture.  Descriptions in
>> this new format could be linked to BIBFRAME resources as an Annotation, and
>> linked to OCLC records for the appropriate edition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we have structured data, we can develop the cross-institutional
>> datastores and access means that our users need.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?  Volunteers?  The IR thread has re-invigorated my interest in
>> this idea, and I'd like to push forward.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Allison
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Elizabeth O'Keefe
> Director of Collection Information Systems
> The Morgan Library & Museum
> 225 Madison Avenue
> New York, NY  10016-3405
>
> TEL: 212 590-0380
> FAX: 2127685680
> NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org
>
> Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:
> http://corsair.themorgan.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150407/e2faa632/attachment-0001.html>