Exactly Karen: my suggestion (since OCLC gets the weekly NAF update file for
OCLC) is to extract from that file all its 010 fields: using those 010s,
CODE4LIB can then extract the authority records (using Batch in CONNEXION).
OCLC promulgates NAF for its members, and that will be a notification
service for the NAF added that very week. Kindest thanks for your attention,
Yašaqov
On 10/18/08 7:20 PM, "Calhoun,Karen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> OCLC gets the same data as anyone that subscribes to the NAF updates--the LC
> copy of the NAF is the master copy, not OCLC's. Your best bet in the near term
> is to subscribe to the updates.
>
> Karen
>
>
> Sent from my Blackberry
>
> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
>
>
> From: Ya'aqov Ziso
> To: Calhoun,Karen
> Sent: Sat Oct 18 17:11:00 2008
> Subject: NAF notification service from OCLC
> Karen, in case you are not subscribed to CODE4LIB, herešs my note to you
> there.
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Ya'aqov Ziso <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:25:09 -0400
> To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: NAF notification service from OCLC
>
> Greetings Karen Calhoun,
>
> Given OpenSource/Apachešs SOLR 1.3 and its new features, VUfind are trying to
> match headings from the bibliographic index to an authority index.
>
> This thread has been focused on a notification for the weekly NAF updates (not
> on getting the full NAF, nor on reminiscing, with all due respect, NACOšs
> history and strength).
> We have a way to harvest the LCSH and NAF files; we have a way to get the LCSH
> updates from CSB. The only updates we can not get (without paying annually
> $5,200 to an authority vendor) are the NAF updates. Since OCLC is getting
> these NAF updates from NACO, making them available to OCLC members, I have
> proposed that OCLC would also provide the 010 list for those weekly NAF
> updates. Nothing else.
>
> The OpenSource venues for metadata harvesting and discovery beyond the
> traditional ILS are happening, right now. Possibly, practices and decisions
> that seemed expedient 20 years ago grew out of touch. This is an opportunity
> for a collaboration between your office, OCLC/WorldCat and Metadata Services
> and CODE4LIB. If your reply is that we wait 2 years for this to be reviewed,
> or that we go to another vendor, that will do.
>
> Regards,
> Yašaqov Ziso, eResources-Serials, Rowan University
>
> =================================
>
> (from AUTOCAT)
>
> Hello again Ya'aqov Ziso,
>
> Sorry this is long, but I thought some clarity might be achieved by providing
> a perspective on the partnership between LC, the bibliographic utilities, and
> libraries that has brought the NACO program to its present strength.
>
> In answer to your questions:
>
> 1. OCLC has never charged for use of the LC NAF and does not intend to do so.
>
> 2. Because there have never been charges, there have been no credits for NACO
> authority records. Many years ago, OCLC experimented with building an update
> service for authority records, but there was insufficient demand for it among
> OCLC members. I am not sure, but this kind of service may be available
> nowadays from one of the authority control vendors.
>
> 3 and 4a. For many years -- since about 1988 -- OCLC, RLG, and LC were
> partners in the distribution and management of the NAF. (I wrote a paper about
> this collaboration some years ago, which I believe can still be accessed
> through a Google search--will try to send the URL separately).
>
> Before 1988, NACO contributors typed paper worksheets and mailed them to LC
> for rekeying. The CLR (now CLIR) provided seed money for RLG and OCLC to build
> contribution and data exchange systems to support online NACO work in both RLG
> and OCLC, together with the means to keep LC's and the two utilities' copies
> of the NAF within 24 hours of synchronization with each other. This was called
> the Linked Systems Project. Some old timers may remember it.
>
> The CLR seed funding was quickly exhausted, and the two utilities finished the
> development and then supported the costs of file synchronzation and online
> contribution by NACO participants on their own, without charging fees. Since
> the RLG OCLC merger, OCLC has been supporting the NAF contribution/data
> exchange system. Fees for the service have never been charged.
>
> Under the circumstances, LC and OCLC believe there is a mutual exchange of
> value between themselves and the NACO libraries, and the partners have called
> it even. To your point, LC does not charge OCLC for NAF data, and OCLC does
> not charge LC or NACO participants for hosting the NACO contribution/data
> exchange/synchronization system.
>
> I have 20 years of perspective on this history of support for NACO, since I
> was directly involved with building the Linked Systems Project as well as
> getting NACO libaries trained to use it from 1988 through about 1993. It's my
> belief that without the dedication, successful partnership, and significant
> contribution of resources by the people at LC, RLG, and OCLC to the system
> that underpins NACO, the NACO program woukd never have been able to expand to
> what it is today. Obviously the thriving program that exists today woukd never
> have happened without the commitment of the NACO libraries either -- but it
> took all of us to build it and keep it going all these years.
>
> 4b. I believe CODE4LIB could subscribe to the NAF through LC's Catalog
> Distribution Service.
>
> Hope this is helpful to you.
>
> Karen
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
|
