Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:

> If specific "rights" were taken out, this kind of makes sense --   
> becuase if the (first draft) policy says you CAN transfer your   
> original cataloging and non-OCLC records without permission, the   
> implication (or was it explicit?) was that you can NOT transfer   
> other records without permission. And does anyone really NEED OCLC's  
>  permission to transfer records that did not ever touch Worldcat in   
> the first place?

No, because those records would presumably not be considered "WorldCat  
records." (Although the definition of WorldCat records was also  
removed from this version, so it's going to be hard to know if we are  
all talking about the same thing.) However, the original cataloging  
records most likely are considered WorldCat records. I recall that  
some folks objected to this exception on the grounds that someone may  
have contributed a minimum record that was then upgraded by a  
2nd/3rd/4th library (with considerable effort and expense), yet the  
original library (defined as first code in 040 $a) would be able to do  
things with the enhanced record that the enhancers could not.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but this is an  
interesting example of the complexity of the question "whose record is  
it?"

kc


> The second draft policy no longer exactly says or implies that the   
> only records you can transfer are the records OCLC gives you   
> permission to transfer.  It's not entirely clear to me WHAT it says,  
>  it does not specifically make clear what you can or can not do, as   
> was the original goal of the first draft.
>
> In the real world of administrators who are VERY deferrent to OCLC,   
> this probably means they will continue to think they ought not to   
> transfer any records anywhere except via OCLC.  Except we are   
> starting to see administrators acting differently. We will see.
>
> The one specific in the 2nd draft IS an improvement, and is   
> eminently reasonable. It says a library can transfer records to a   
> 'processing vendor', and then have the processed records returned to  
>  the library, with only a bilateral agreement between the library  
> and  the vendor, without needing to get OCLC involved at all.   
> Believe it  or not, previously, under the 1987 document, libraries  
> generally did  NOT believe they could do this, and often did NOT do  
> it, refusing to  hire a vendor who did not have an agreement with  
> OCLC to process  records that came from WorldCat. That OCLC is  
> explicitly making it  clear that a bilateral agreement is fine, is  
> actually fine  improvement, and quite reasonable.
>
> Jonathan
> ________________________________________
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of   
> Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Next-generation policy for WorldCat   
> records?open for community review
>
> Quoting Ed Summers <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> While the new draft is written in a much friendlier tone, and even has
>>> some improvements, it also takes away concrete rights that libraries
>>> had in the earlier drafts, including the right to consider fully
>>> "theirs" records that a library had themselves cataloged, whether or
>>> not the records moved through OCLC wires.
>>
>> Hi Tim, can you cite the specific language in the document that
>> says/implies this? I haven't had time to look it over in depth yet,
>> and if you have it would be useful to keep the discussion anchored to
>> the text.
>
> The previous policy said:
>
> "An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following
> without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated
> in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC
> Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from
> WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the
> OCLC control number to the record."
> (p.2)
>
> That language is not present in the new policy.
>
> kc
>
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-510-435-8234        
> end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> skype: kcoylenet
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet