 |
 |
I'm trying to get a handle on the new policy as compared to the old policy, and what it really means. All in all, it seems much more vague than the "first draft", no longer trying to be an obligatory legal contract like the first draft was -- in this way more similar to the old 1987 policy. 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? Some would be offended by OCLC giving us 'permission' to do that, implying we needed it in the first place. 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