 |
 |
I had another thought (ouch... hurts...) which is this: if OCLC had to open up its data, then it would have to improve its services to survive. K.G. Schneider On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:28:14 -0600, "Danielle Plumer" <[log in to unmask]> said: > Kevin Kelly had an interesting post on The Technium last week about these > sorts of issues > (http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php), and > his conclusion is exactly along the lines of Karen's post. > > His assumptions are: > > When copies are super abundant, they become worthless. > When copies are super abundant, stuff which can't be copied becomes > scarce and valuable. > > So he concludes: > > When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied. > > The things which cannot be copied are services -- he lists eight > "generatives" that have value. These are immediacy, personalization, > interpretation, authenticity, accessibility, embodiment, patronage, and > findability. Trust is also mentioned as a intangible asset with > significant value. > > I find that this is a compelling argument, and it seems to be in line > with things I hear coming out of OCLC Research, at least, and from the > folks at Open Library, too. It will take time for an organization with as > much inertia as OCLC has to change its modus operandi, but I think it > will come. However, unlike others, I tend to be an optimist in the > morning and a cynic by nightfall, so we'll see... > > Danielle Cunniff Plumer, Coordinator > Texas Heritage Digitization Initiative > Texas State Library and Archives Commission > 512.463.5852 (phone) / 512.936.2306 (fax) > [log in to unmask] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of > K.G. Schneider > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:04 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Records for Open Library > > > > Maybe Roy will answer that one -- but I doubt its that difficult to guess. > > OCLC's primary value is its bibliographic database and the information > > about its member's holdings. Nearly all of it's services are built around > > this. If they gave that information up to the Open Library, it would most > > certainly undermine their ILL, Cataloging and Grid Services initiatives. > > However, if a handful of members in relation to their membership > > participate in the program -- its no skin off their noses. > > > > --TR > > > > You know, I realize that's the going-in thinking, and OCLC has shared > that > with me. I fully understand the need for OCLC to protect its services. > But I > remember with a previous job that people (even some very important > people) > thought our product was our data, but it really wasn't: it was the > services > we wrapped around the data, including maintenance, delivery, affiliated > products, etc. It's true that the data had to be good, but that goodness > didn't come with a core dump of one-time static data. Keeping our data > closed ultimately harmed us, perhaps perniciously, and I wish I had done > a > better job of championing a different path. I didn't have the skills or > vocabulary and to this day I regret that. > > Karen G. "Been there, done that, got the teeshirt" Schneider > [log in to unmask]