Roy, 

OCLC gets the weekly NAF updates, can simply run a grep command to extract the 010 fields to a new file, and put the new file in a place available for OCLC members' retrieval. Explaining why OCLC needs to take 2 years for considering their competing priorities with those of their partners doesn't help much as we move in a Web 2.0 speed. Unless this proposal can be fulfilled, respectfully, let's agree to disagree on this, and move on.

Ya'aqov



-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Roy Tennant
Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] NAF notification service from OCLC
 
Ya'aqov, 
The answer is not "no", it is exactly as Karen described. Since you
interpret this as "no", I wonder if you have a less than complete grasp on
what it takes to develop an ongoing production service upon which you can
rely. Also, I hope you can appreciate that we have many competing priorities
that we cannot simply ignore in order to respond to a new service idea. As
most institutions do, we have a procedure for weighing development
priorities and making strategic decisions that we cannot simply throw aside
upon a whim. Lastly, part of what we would be required to do is to work with
the Library of Congress as the producer of the data before we could create
such a service. Thank you for allowing me to further explain why we cannot
simply implement your proposal.
Roy 


On 10/12/08 10/12/08 . 11:39 AM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>> suggestion to our list of potential new services and enhancements for
> consideration in our next round of planning for development in fiscal year
> 2010.
> 
> Roy, Karen, 
>      The deferment suggested by your reply leaves out CODE4LIB's core offer,
> to engage timely technologies for the libraries available currently, in the
> pace of Web 2.0. It seems OCLC has yet to find  way to cope with the pace of
> such offers. If there were two ways of saying No to our NAF update
> notification request from OCLC, I guess you opted for the second.
> Legitimately and respectfully I take this as a No.
> Regards, 
> Ya'aqov Ziso, 
> 
>  
> 
> On 10/11/08 5:48 PM, "Roy Tennant" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Forwarded by permission.
>> Roy
>> 
>> On 10/10/08 10/10/08 . 2:57 PM, "Calhoun,Karen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Ya'aqov Ziso,
>>> 
>>> Your email request/proposal of 4 October 2008 to Roy Tennant ("My proposal
>>> to
>>> you is that OCLC will start offering a NEW service to its
>>> members/subscribers.
>>> That service will be a simple listing of the 010 fields for Name authority
>>> records that have been CHANGED that week in the OCLC NAF, and 010 for the
>>> new
>>> Name authority records for that have been ADDED to NAF.") has been referred
>>> by
>>> OCLC Research to the OCLC Metadata Services product group for consideration.
>>> 
>>> We are pleased to receive your suggestion for a new service. We will add
>>> this
>>> suggestion to our list of potential new services and enhancements for
>>> consideration in our next round of planning for development in fiscal year
>>> 2010.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you for sharing your ideas with us.
>>> 
>>> Karen 
>>> 
>>> Karen Calhoun 
>>> Vice President, WorldCat and Metadata Services
>>> 6565 Kilgour Place
>>> Dublin OH 43017
>>> 800-848-5878 x6441
>>> 614-764-6441 
>>> FAX: 614-718-7457
>>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/4/08 10/4/08 . 2:02 PM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The following message has been posted also in ACAT
>>> ===============================
>>> Roy,
>>>    
>>>     Kindest thanks for providing language in-between systems engineers such
>>> as CODE4LIB and bibliographic control librarians such as ACAT
>>> ( http://techessence.info/tech/ ). The premise of my appeal to you was that
>>> you also represent OCLC Programs & Research when contributing to CODE4LIB
>>> and ACAT.
>>> 
>>> 1. CODE4LIB expressed interest in obtaining a copy of LCSH and NAF and their
>>> weekly updates (see the first eMail in the thread you're pointing at
>>> http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2008/200809/subject.html
>>> from Andrew Nagy, then 2 follow ups from Andrew and myself).
>>> 
>>> 2. At a later point in the thread, the focus was placed on the UPDATES for
>>> NAF. OCLC are receiving weekly updates for NAF, updating and making these
>>> files current for OCLC subscribers/members.
>>> 
>>> 3. My proposal to you is that OCLC will start offering a NEW service to its
>>> members/subscribers. That service will be a simple listing of the 010 fields
>>> for Name authority records that have been CHANGED that week in the OCLC NAF,
>>> and 010 for the new Name authority records for that have been ADDED to NAF.
>>> 
>>> 4. Such service will assist system staff in planning their authority work
>>> and sufficient also for CODE4LIB's current purposes.
>>> 
>>> If you wish to explore this opportunity for collaboration some more, I will
>>> be glad to follow up offline. Kindest thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ya'aqov Ziso, Rowan University
>>> 
>>> =================================
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Ya'aqov, I'm afraid I don't have any idea to what you are referring.
>>>>> Although I had posted one message on an authorities thread in Code4Lib, it
>>>>> wasn't this at all. Anyone who wants to see this thread can do so at:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2008/200809/subject.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look for "LOC Authority Data". Thanks,
>>>>> Roy
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/1/08 10/1/08 ? 9:56 AM, "Ya'aqov Ziso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The following request from OCLC/Roy Tennant (in another list) may be of
>>>>>>> interest also here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can OCLC provide a service to its members with a list of 010 (only the
>>>>> 010)
>>>>>>> for the NAME authority records for the specific weekly update of each
>>>>>>> >>>
>> week
>>>>>>> OCLC receive from NACO/LC?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a simple grep from the NAF weekly update, listing additions and
>>>>>>> changes to NAF for that week. That seems to be no infringement of any
>>>>>>> >>>
>> copy
>>>>>>> rights, just pointers to records that can be reviewed by system staff
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> planning their authority work. A most useful service from OCLC. Kindest
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

--