 |
 |
I think it's worthwhile making a distinction between an open API and a closed one. That is, most product APIs require you to have purchased the product to gain access. So I don't see an API as undercutting a market, but rather increasing the potential market space to include some who are only interested in API access. However, there may be a question of development resources and my guess (not being close to it) is that the development resources for WorldCat Local are probably focused on industrializing what is admittedly still a very new product. At least, that's what I would do. None of this precludes the opportunity to eventually offer API access to WorldCat Local customers in addition to "native" access. Roy On 11/9/07 11:24 AM, "Joseph Lucia" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At the recent OCLC Members Council meeting there was some strong support > voiced from the floor during OCLC management's general presentation for such > an API, but it is not clear where OCLC stands on the matter. The answers from > OCLC officers about this were hedgy, though they hinted at some sort of > development in progress. Others may know more. They (OCLC) are clearly > focused on the market position of WorldCat Local and a robust and extensive > API might undercut that -- but probably only with one market sector. We need > to keep pressing the issue. > > ********* > Joe Lucia > University Librarian > Villanova University > 610-519-4290 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roy > Tennant > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:11 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [Fwd: [NGC4LIB] A Thought Experiment] > > I agree with Jonathan's points below, and would suggest that a robust enough > WorldCat API should be sufficient to allow any library that has the desire > and the capacity to integrate everything available there with whatever else > they wish. > Roy > > > On 11/9/07 9:42 AM, "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Good points. >> >> "If I wanted a drop-in in one-size solution for resource discovery, from >> a "corporate" supplier, for instance, I'd have to say that WorldCat >> local looks pretty darn interesting. But the kind of locally-iterable, >> modular, extensible toolkit that I think positions libraries well for >> experimentation and innovation." >> >> There's another important reason this "kind of locally-iterable modular >> extensible toolkit" is absolutely vital, in addition to "positioning >> libraries well for experimentation and innovation." It's because we >> absolutely need to functionally integrate our various _different_ >> products from differnet vendors. Even if you go with WorldCat Local, you >> still have many products from other vendors that you'd really like it to >> integrate with (both on the end-user-interface, and on the backend staff >> metadata control and other interfaces). The path to accomplishing this >> is with that kind of "modular extensible toolkit"---dropping in an >> ostensible "one-size solution" often only creates more problems with >> lack of integration. >> >> We want "loosely coupled", but we're currently often stuck with "not >> coupled at all", which causes no end of problems. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> Joe Lucia wrote: > > -- --