 |
 |
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation >> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty >> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains. >> >> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html > > Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and for > all: > > ALL THE THINGS. ALL. > > At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put the > past in the past. That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :) > Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked > open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked data > world, then no one is paying attention. > Roy > > [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html > [2] > http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-nuggets-of-linked-data/ > [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811 Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given Works page) :) A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-licensing/questions.en.html