I think to really build up any mindshare it would have to start in areas that it would be extremely beneficial to have an information commons but OCLC is not really dealing with right now (such as book jackets, reviews, tags, anonymized lending patterns data, etc.)  Just getting the LC data out there is a huge first step but I don't think it is enough to create something sustainable in the long term. 

There has to be a carrot to get people to share their data and without a huge amount of data to bootstrap with it's hard to know what the carrot could be.  "Like OCLC, but free (*)" is compelling; "Like OCLC, but we only have data you can already get from LC for free" isn't nearly as much.  Open library data (of all types) is the vision but beyond the LC bib/auth data, what other low hanging bibliographic fruit is there?  

Actually I think what you're doing with LT for libraries is an intriguing to get started.  Libraries are sending you their holdings data because they'll get something awesome in return for it. Though, again, you can offer them something awesome in return for more data because you already have a big pile 'o data built up (that in turn came from your LT users by offering them something awesome in return for it).

--Casey

(*) as in beer, speech, kitten, dummy (**), take your pick.
(**) "If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy, and people will try to catch you, because hey, free dummy." -- Jack Handey

>>> Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> 5/10/2007 11:13 AM >>>
How do you see an OSLC developing?

I've always felt the basis was getting some open library data-getting
the LC data out. This is apparently what the other Casey is doing.

Is there another way? Are there other supports that could be in place
when the LC data gets out?

T

On 5/10/07, Casey Durfee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: OSLC anyone?  OCLC is too large and too old to substantially change their business practices.  They have great people working there and do some excellent things (which is why the fact they won't share their goodies with the rest of us is so galling) but they're just not going to fundamentally change the way they do business until they have to, and since they're a monopoly, that may be never.
>
> We need to recognize this.  Building an open content library data commons is far more likely to happen than OCLC changing the way they've done things forever.  No flies on OCLC but they are what they are.
>
>
> >>> Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> 5/10/2007 7:59 AM >>>
> PS: The more I think about this, the more burned up I actually get.
> Which maybe means I shouldn't post about it, but hey, I've never been
> one for circumspection.
>
> If OCLC is "us", then OCLC will gladly share with us (who are in fact
> "them", right?) their research on workset grouping algorithms, and
> precisely what workset grouping algorithm they are using in current
> implementations of xISBN and other services, right? After all, if OCLC
> is not a vendor, but just "us" collectively, why would one part of "us"
> need to keep trade secrets from another part of "us"?  Right?
>
> While OCLC is at it, OCLC could throw in some more information on this
> project, which has apparently been consigned to trade secret land since
> it's sole (apparently mistaken) public outing:
> http://www.code4lib.org/2006/smith
>
> Our field needs publically shared research results and publically shared
> solutions, to build a research community, to solve the vexing problems
> we have in front of us in increasingly better ways, building off each
> other. We need public domain solutions. "We" are not interested in
> secret solutions. Vendors, however, need proprietary trade secrets, to
> make sure they can solve the problems better than their competitors. If
> OCLC is not a vendor but is instead "us", then why does OCLC treat it's
> research findings as something that needs to be kept secret from the
> actual _us_---everyone here who does not work for OCLC. That's "us".
>
> Jonathan
>
> Eric Hellman wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > It's worth noting that OCLC *is* the "we" you are talking about.
> >
> > OCLC member libraries contribute resources to do exactly what you
> > suggest, and to do it in a way that is sustainable for the long term.
> > Worldcat is created and maintained by libraries and by librarians.
> > I'm the last to suggest that OCLC is the best possible instantiation
> > of libraries-working-together, but we do try.
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > At 3:01 PM -0400 5/9/07, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> >> 2) More interesting---OCLC's _initial_ work set grouping algorithm is
> >> public. However, we know they've done a lot of additional work to
> >> fine-tune the work set grouping algorithms.
> >> (http://www.frbr.org/2007/01/16/midwinter-implementers).  Some of these
> >> algorithms probably take advantage of all the cool data OCLC has that we
> >> don't, okay.
> >>
> >> But how about we start working to re-create this algorithm? "Re-create"
> >> isn't a good word, because we aren't going to violate any NDA's, we're
> >> going to develop/invent our own algorithm, but this one is going to be
> >> open source, not a trade secret like OCLC's.
> >>
> >> So we develop an algorithm on our own, and we run that algorithm on our
> >> own data. Our own local catalog. Union catalogs. Conglomerations of
> >> different catalogs that we do ourselves. Even reproductions of the OCLC
> >> corpus (or significant subsets thereof) that we manage to assemble in
> >> ways that don't violate copyright or license agreements.
> >>
> >> And then we've got our own workset grouping service. Which is really all
> >> xISBN is.  What is OCLC providing that is so special? Well, if what I've
> >> just outlined above is so much work that we _can't_ pull it off, then I
> >> guess we've got pay OCLC, and if we are willing to do so (rather than go
> >> without the service), then I guess OCLC has correctly pegged their
> >> market price.
> >>
> >> But our field is not a healthy field if all research is being done by
> >> OCLC and other vendors. We need research from other places, we need
> >> research that produces public domain results, not proprietary trade
> >> secrets.
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Eric Hellman, Director                            OCLC Openly
> > Informatics Division
> > [log in to unmask]                                    2 Broad St., Suite 208
> > tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216              Bloomfield, NJ 07003
> > http://openly.oclc.org/1cate/      1 Click Access To Everything
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>