Jonathan,
We will likely change the wording to refer to OCLC "governing members" which
is defined elsewhere, albeit with virtually identical terms. The thing is we
completely understand that "ALL", if interpreted as "every single one" is
not reality, nor should it be. However, hedging that with vague terminology
like "most" is also not optimal. The bottom line is this:

We wish to open WorldCat records and data elements to innovative use while
protecting OCLC members' investment in WorldCat. We want to encourage new
innovative uses while not encouraging use that will discourage future
contribution of metadata to WorldCat.

So...if your institution qualifies as an OCLC governing member (and it
does), then no worries. This is because your institution does in fact
contribute all the cataloging and holdings *that it can* to the collective
catalog. The fact that these contributions are sans specific types of
records (ones covered by restrictive terms, substandard records, etc.) is
well understood and does not violate any terms.

We really are trying to enable our library members to have free access to
the records and holdings they have contributed, so if we sometimes trip over
our terminology we certainly want this to be brought to our attention so we
can correct it. Thanks,
Roy


On 10/6/08 10/6/08 • 6:48 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I appreciate your attention to this stuff Roy, but I'm afraid that
> doesn't really work either.
> 
> I think MOST libraries that use OCLC Worldcat for the bulk of their
> cataloging do NOT in fact contribute "all" cataloging or holdings back
> to worldcat.  Many libraries have particular items that for reasons of
> institutional policy (which I admit I find byzantine) keep some holdings
> out of Worldcat. And/or do not contribute some 'original cataloging' to
> Worldcat, even if they contribute most---perhaps because some of their
> 'original cataloging' is not up to AACR2 and/or Worldcat standards, so
> they can't/don't want to/are embaressed to share it.
> 
> I'm afraid those new terms may have just excluded my library!
> 
> I'm not really sure what OCLC is actually trying to accomplish with
> these terms, what's the goal?  But I don't think you're doing it yet. I
> hope my library isn't now excluded from Worldcat API use---or that I'd
> need to get our cataloging unit to make fundamental changes in what they
> do, that they are resistant to, in order to use it.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> ---
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Digital Services Software Engineer
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>>>> Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> 10/3/2008 10:33 PM >>>
> On 10/2/08 10/2/08 € 2:39 PM, "Jenn Riley" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the link, Roy. I hadn't taken the time to look this far
> into the
>> Grid Services terms of use. One thing stuck out to me, though. What
> does
>> "Library members that do ***all*** their cataloging with an OCLC
> subscription"
>> mean? The "all" part is what doesn't make sense to me on first read.
> 
> Jenn,
> Thanks for asking. We agreed that the wording is perhaps not the best,
> so we
> changed it to "Library members that contribute all current cataloging
> and
> holdings to WorldCat" which we think gets more at what we mean. That
> is, the
> important thing is that you contribute information about what you have
> to
> the common pool. Thanks for spurring us to make this change and we hope
> that
> clarifies our intent. Thanks,
> Roy
> 

--