[open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database of "open" resources?

Fri Aug 27 15:59:40 UTC 2010

Quoting Owen Stephens <owen at ostephens.com>:

>
> I'm not at all convinced that simply containing the OCLC number means that
> the record comes from OCLC, but agree it could be an indicator

Owen, in fact anyone can add an OCLC number or delete one from a  
record -- there is no protection against that. As part of the WorldCat  
Local process, libraries send records to OCLC that do not have OCLC  
numbers, and OCLC matches them to the WC database and adds the number.  
That record could have come from anywhere, but now has an OCLC number.

>
> Can any cataloguing/MARC gurus confirm that in theory the 040 and 008/39 to
> identify the source of cataloguing (as far as is possible)?

I'm not by any means a guru in this area, but I think what we will run  
up against here is inconsistent use of the 040 field in different  
library systems. OCLC seems to always mark the source of updates by  
adding the library's code to the 040 field. I doubt if local systems  
do the same; that is, if a library has updated a record in their local  
system, my guess is that the 040 field is not necessarily updated. So  
should that record be exchanged directly with another library (or sent  
out to the cloud) that update is not registered.

It seems to me that there are only two things that can be known in  
*some* cases: 1) where did the record originate? (040 $a, the library  
that did the original cataloging) 2) where did the record immediately  
come from? (the 003, the sending agency). That said, I know for a fact  
that many libraries do not property set the 001 (local system id) and  
003 when they export records -- many send out records with the OCLC  
number in the 001, and their own system number in a 9xx field.

> What would be
> really good is if we could start to compile a list of 'rights' or licensing
> across those organisiations that can appear in 040? (perhaps even persuade
> LoC and other agencies this should be added to organisational records which
> have valid MARC21 Organisation codes in
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/organizations/org-search.php and equivalent national
> lists)

Once again, OCLC practices have overridden standards. OCLC puts the  
OCLC customer ID in the 040, not the standard MARC21 organization  
code. You can look up OCLC ids on their site, but I don't see a way to  
download the whole list.
   http://www.oclc.org/contacts/libraries/

I think that the upshot is: great idea, but the data may not support it.

:-)

kc

>
> I realise that to be exhaustive would be a huge amount of work, but think
> that to cover the main sources of records in a country wouldn't be too hard?
>
> This could also help inform choices about where libraries who want to
> publish open data get their bib data from?
>
> Does this have any legs or is it pointless/too much work?
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>> Identifying WorldCat as the source of data that has been transferred or
>> made available downstream of the initial extraction from WorldCat can
>> sometimes be complex. A combination of the following data elements in a
>> bibliographic record can help determine if the record was initially
>> extracted from WorldCat:
>>
>>    * An OCLC Control Number along with
>>          o the 001 field that includes value characters "ocm" or "ocn"
>> and/or
>>          o the 035 field that includes the value "(OCoLC)" and/or
>>          o the 994 field"
>>
>> I think all this must be read together. Even though your library is not,
>> and has never been, an OCLC library, you may still be in possession of what
>> is defined here as "WorldCat Data" and therefore subject to this policy.
>> This also clearly includes single records. Although I am not a lawyer, from
>> what I read here, it seems that once something has touched OCLC in any way
>> at all, and no matter what you have done with it, OCLC claims ownership
>> (i.e. that it is WorldCat Data) and that it falls under this policy.
>>
>> How this deals with, e.g. a record created by the Library of Congress,
>> perhaps even as CIP (i.e. public domain), then being downloaded and updated
>> by another library, finally, I would take this record directly from e.g.
>> Yale, through Z39.50 and update it myself, according to this, this record
>> would still fall under OCLC's policy.
>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet