 |
 |
Exactly Karen: my suggestion (since OCLC gets the weekly NAF update file for OCLC) is to extract from that file all its 010 fields: using those 010s, CODE4LIB can then extract the authority records (using Batch in CONNEXION). OCLC promulgates NAF for its members, and that will be a notification service for the NAF added that very week. Kindest thanks for your attention, Yašaqov On 10/18/08 7:20 PM, "Calhoun,Karen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > OCLC gets the same data as anyone that subscribes to the NAF updates--the LC > copy of the NAF is the master copy, not OCLC's. Your best bet in the near term > is to subscribe to the updates. > > Karen > > > Sent from my Blackberry > > OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. > > > From: Ya'aqov Ziso > To: Calhoun,Karen > Sent: Sat Oct 18 17:11:00 2008 > Subject: NAF notification service from OCLC > Karen, in case you are not subscribed to CODE4LIB, herešs my note to you > there. > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Ya'aqov Ziso <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:25:09 -0400 > To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: NAF notification service from OCLC > > Greetings Karen Calhoun, > > Given OpenSource/Apachešs SOLR 1.3 and its new features, VUfind are trying to > match headings from the bibliographic index to an authority index. > > This thread has been focused on a notification for the weekly NAF updates (not > on getting the full NAF, nor on reminiscing, with all due respect, NACOšs > history and strength). > We have a way to harvest the LCSH and NAF files; we have a way to get the LCSH > updates from CSB. The only updates we can not get (without paying annually > $5,200 to an authority vendor) are the NAF updates. Since OCLC is getting > these NAF updates from NACO, making them available to OCLC members, I have > proposed that OCLC would also provide the 010 list for those weekly NAF > updates. Nothing else. > > The OpenSource venues for metadata harvesting and discovery beyond the > traditional ILS are happening, right now. Possibly, practices and decisions > that seemed expedient 20 years ago grew out of touch. This is an opportunity > for a collaboration between your office, OCLC/WorldCat and Metadata Services > and CODE4LIB. If your reply is that we wait 2 years for this to be reviewed, > or that we go to another vendor, that will do. > > Regards, > Yašaqov Ziso, eResources-Serials, Rowan University > > ================================= > > (from AUTOCAT) > > Hello again Ya'aqov Ziso, > > Sorry this is long, but I thought some clarity might be achieved by providing > a perspective on the partnership between LC, the bibliographic utilities, and > libraries that has brought the NACO program to its present strength. > > In answer to your questions: > > 1. OCLC has never charged for use of the LC NAF and does not intend to do so. > > 2. Because there have never been charges, there have been no credits for NACO > authority records. Many years ago, OCLC experimented with building an update > service for authority records, but there was insufficient demand for it among > OCLC members. I am not sure, but this kind of service may be available > nowadays from one of the authority control vendors. > > 3 and 4a. For many years -- since about 1988 -- OCLC, RLG, and LC were > partners in the distribution and management of the NAF. (I wrote a paper about > this collaboration some years ago, which I believe can still be accessed > through a Google search--will try to send the URL separately). > > Before 1988, NACO contributors typed paper worksheets and mailed them to LC > for rekeying. The CLR (now CLIR) provided seed money for RLG and OCLC to build > contribution and data exchange systems to support online NACO work in both RLG > and OCLC, together with the means to keep LC's and the two utilities' copies > of the NAF within 24 hours of synchronization with each other. This was called > the Linked Systems Project. Some old timers may remember it. > > The CLR seed funding was quickly exhausted, and the two utilities finished the > development and then supported the costs of file synchronzation and online > contribution by NACO participants on their own, without charging fees. Since > the RLG OCLC merger, OCLC has been supporting the NAF contribution/data > exchange system. Fees for the service have never been charged. > > Under the circumstances, LC and OCLC believe there is a mutual exchange of > value between themselves and the NACO libraries, and the partners have called > it even. To your point, LC does not charge OCLC for NAF data, and OCLC does > not charge LC or NACO participants for hosting the NACO contribution/data > exchange/synchronization system. > > I have 20 years of perspective on this history of support for NACO, since I > was directly involved with building the Linked Systems Project as well as > getting NACO libaries trained to use it from 1988 through about 1993. It's my > belief that without the dedication, successful partnership, and significant > contribution of resources by the people at LC, RLG, and OCLC to the system > that underpins NACO, the NACO program woukd never have been able to expand to > what it is today. Obviously the thriving program that exists today woukd never > have happened without the commitment of the NACO libraries either -- but it > took all of us to build it and keep it going all these years. > > 4b. I believe CODE4LIB could subscribe to the NAF through LC's Catalog > Distribution Service. > > Hope this is helpful to you. > > Karen > > ------ End of Forwarded Message >