[open-bibliography] Openbiblio at OCLC

Anders Söderbäck Anders.Soderback at sub.su.se
Thu May 26 12:35:11 UTC 2011

I agree with Adrian. An actual open license issued by OCLC would, I think,
supercede the policy. One of my main critiques of the policy is that I
find it vague. An actual license should make things clearer. However, all
my dealings with OCLC have ended with a "yeah, but.." or, as the FAQ
attached to the police answers every question: "Yes. Please note,
however..." I would actually prefer a straight no.

As regards to Karens notes about LD, I haven't met any fear of it. Rather
reactions like "Interesting, but how can it actually solve my problem? I
have a vendor that is willing to do this for me right now, if I only sign
this contract, and I need the issue solved, not wait for something that
_might_ solve my problems in a few years!"

/ Anders

Den 2011-05-26 11.43 skrev Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org>:

>I don't see it necessarily as a problem that the "policy" should
>co-exist with an open data recommendation. The policy isn't legally
>binding anyway but a "social contract".
>Obviously, it would be contradictory to recommend open data and forbid
>single libraries to publish their data under an open license as OCLC
>tried to do through the policy. Actually, the answers OCLC gave to my
>questions on open data in the community forum in 2010[1] should then
>be invalid and superseded by a recommendation for open data (in the
>case this recommendation is really made by OCLC.)
>2011/5/25 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:
>>> Damn it!  I was getting all optimistic for a few hours there!
>>> So it won't be simply ODC-BY (which I forget what that is) but
>>> ODC-BY+OCLC-usage-policy... which isn't really ODC-BY then.
>> That's what I heard Calhoun say. The slide states:
>> Our preliminary thoughts on Open Data Licensing
>> ?We are considering recommending ODC-BY
>> ?Distinguishes between the database and its contents (or portions of
>> contents)
>> ?[Member DATABASE NAME] would be the name of the member?s or group?s
>> catalog, and the member or group = the licensor
>> ?License notice wording in accordance with instructions in ODC licenses
>> ?Still under investigation?your input invited and welcome
>I read this like OCLC may choose a similar approach that the hbz and
>another German library service center (BSZ) have chosen to open up a
>union catalog: OCLC basically would recommend open licensing for parts
>of WorldCat. If a member library or group wants to follow the
>recommendation, OCLC publishes the data with holdings from the member
>or member group as Open Data under an ODC-BY license. This is my take
>on interpreting these slides. Roy, it would be good if you could bring
>some more clarity into this...
>[1] http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/recorduse/policy/forum/forum.pdf
>> I'm not totally discouraged -- there are folks at OCLC who understand
>> and there are some interesting LD efforts there (http://dewey.info and
>> http://viaf.org). I really think that the LOD "tsunami" will have an
>> on OCLC, and we'll see movement in that direction. To my mind the best
>> approach is to continue to develop LOD and to continue to raise
>> I had a call this morning with a group of open data advocates in Italy,
>> they report the same issues that many are finding, which is that the
>> legal status of library data is unknown. Continuing that conversation
>>in all
>> available venues is going to be a key "consciousness raising" act; the
>> we understand that issue widely in our community the more we will find
>> expectation of openness. That expectation is our strongest weapon.
>> We also need to educate people about LD -- that linked data  is not a
>> database dump but is an interaction between data created by different
>> possibly in different communities. I think this will ease some of the
>> that people have. I try to explain that letting people link to you does
>> change your data anymore than letting people link to your web site
>> the site. It's possible that we can reconcile business models and
>> when this is better understood.
>> kc
>>> I simply don't understand why a cooperative wants that record use
>>> policy.  "Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help,
>>> self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In
>>> the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the
>>> ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring
>>> for others." (from www.ica.coop)  OK, it might have been adopted
>>> democratically, while solidarity and social responsibility are probably
>>> arguable, but several of the others seem less so.
>>> Of course, I didn't find the ICA values on oclc.org just now!
>>> The OCLC values and principles that you can download from
>>> http://www.oclc.org/us/en/about/cooperation/governance/default.htm
>>> are very different.  If they lose the argument in court over whether
>>> they are a co-op, I think those unusual values and principles may be
>>> part of the reason.
>>> Down again...
>>> --
>>> MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit
>>> http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer,
>>> In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
>>> Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>open-bibliography mailing list
>open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org

More information about the open-bibliography mailing list