tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post3776427222697095790..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: Skyriver RepliesKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-25255644477642357082011-02-17T17:27:19.847-08:002011-02-17T17:27:19.847-08:00Are you asking where the virtual union catalogs ge...Are you asking where the virtual union catalogs get their holdings? The ones I know about query the group online catalogs and compile the hits in real time. <br /><br />Of course, most of those catalogs built their records from OCLC initially, but some of them have records that came from other sources and so include holdings that may not have been reported to OCLC. In particular, some libraries did not do their retrocon via OCLC and did not load the holdings later because of the expense.Linda Billshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05252961571217945906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-54321612237448352332011-02-17T17:25:36.147-08:002011-02-17T17:25:36.147-08:00Brenton, 1) I didn't read anything lawyerly in...Brenton, 1) I didn't read anything lawyerly in Linda's comments. 2) Most union catalogs that I know of gather data from the catalogs of the member libraries. I know the U of California did that; I'm pretty sure that's how the Florida union catalog works; I'd guess that's the same for most consortial catalogs. I think that most library systems today can export records, no?<br /><br />So I guess I don't know what your question actually is. Maybe you can re-state it?Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-8391493494633774822011-02-17T17:07:32.177-08:002011-02-17T17:07:32.177-08:00Linda's comments are sassy, certainly sarcasti...Linda's comments are sassy, certainly sarcastic - maybe she's a lawyer. Wonder where the resource sharing systems get the holdings initially?Brentonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-69472706247614319122011-02-17T13:32:18.871-08:002011-02-17T13:32:18.871-08:00"SkyRiver makes no restrictions on what its u..."SkyRiver makes no restrictions on what its users can do"...maybe because it is a relatively small database. As it grows, I wonder how this policy might change.Sue Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-65284734627324333112011-02-17T13:10:05.011-08:002011-02-17T13:10:05.011-08:00If OCLC wants to live, they need to adapt to the n...If OCLC wants to live, they need to adapt to the new reality of sharing -- that data can be concatenated without having to all live in the same place.<br /><br />There are several resource sharing systems around the country that gather each others' holdings through virtual union catalogs and manage ok.<br /><br />While I think the OCLC actual concatenation probably works better right now, there is a limit to how much libraries will pay for it when there are good enough alternatives developing. Meanwhile, OCLC is rapidly losing the respect of its customers -- sorry, I meant "members".Linda Billshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05252961571217945906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-74956715107710874932011-02-17T12:59:12.462-08:002011-02-17T12:59:12.462-08:00Julie,
I think you are right -- the point is for ...Julie,<br /><br />I think you are right -- the point is for everyone to contribute their data (either to WorldCat or to something else that could also interact with WorldCat) so that we can share both data and resources. SkyRiver makes no restrictions on what its users can do, so they are free to contribute their holdings to OCLC if they wish. If you were in libraries during the time that RLG was still a separate service, you know that many RLG institutions also added their holdings to OCLC through batch loads. In fact, a majority of the records loaded into OCLC in recent times are from batch loads. <br /><br />The current issue came about because of "differential" pricing for libraries that had been doing their cataloging on OCLC but switched to the SkyRiver service (because it would reduce the libraries' cataloging costs). When those libraries tried to batch load their records into OCLC so they could continue to use (and pay for) ILL services, the price for their batch loads was given at 1200% the price that others had been paying. So this is kind of the opposite of what you were suggesting: SkyRiver and the libraries were wanting to contribute their holdings to OCLC, but OCLC priced that at a point that the libraries could not afford to. I recommend the letter from the Director of Libraries at MSU explaining their situation:<br /><br />http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14928<br /><br />I think it comes down to coming up with pricing that encourages libraries to contribute their holdings to OCLC, for the benefit of all, while still supporting WorldCat. Unfortunately, none of us has access to OCLC's internal accounting, so it's hard to know how that balance could be achieved. OCLC is claiming that competing products such as SkyRiver's cataloging service will be the death of OCLC. I am hoping that instead we can find reasonable pricing that encourages ALL libraries to contribute, both the OCLC and to any other library services that meet their needs.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-27117479683390593042011-02-17T12:57:32.761-08:002011-02-17T12:57:32.761-08:00In terms of contributing to the resource sharing/h...In terms of contributing to the resource sharing/holdings information in OCLC, I think those of us who would like to use SkyRiver or another cataloging source are eager to do so. The problem is that, if we are not cataloging members of OCLC the charge to contribute holdings goes up from a few cents to much, much more.<br /><br />SkyRiver or other systems can let us get our cataloging for a much lower cost, and it is OCLC's huge increase in the holdings contribution charge that is in our way. In the end, this is going to drive users away from contributing holdings and reduce the value to both OCLC and libraries of the worldcat holdings files.Linda Billshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05252961571217945906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-79500812701684737312011-02-17T12:34:38.931-08:002011-02-17T12:34:38.931-08:00I always thought the OCLC user agreement was to ma...I always thought the OCLC user agreement was to make sure that those using the data were also contributing data. Without the contributions of the member libraries there would be no WorldCat. If they allow others to use WorldCat holding data then they should be reqeuired to contrbute WorldCat holding data. OCLC is a monopoly but it is also a cooperative. Without requiring contributions, the cooperative will go down the tubes. I know that ILL is a little different in that area but those that borrow from others should also have to lend. I have not read the legal arguments but I wonder if SkyRiver does not want to do the cooperative piece that goes along with maintaining the WorldCat database.Julie B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-42730880394188904772011-02-17T06:15:31.637-08:002011-02-17T06:15:31.637-08:00Anon - Yes, one of the few things I know about ant...Anon - Yes, one of the few things I know about anti-trust is that it isn't just about being a monopoly, but about using that monopoly position to prevent other businesses from arising in the same market. So what it comes down to is that you can be a monopoly, but you still have to play fair. That is the question here, as you point out.<br /><br />One particularly interesting aspect is that the SkyRiver suit seems to be saying that the OCLC record use policy, which has existed for 20 years, has always been about preventing competition. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is a logical conclusion. So even before OCLC had a monopoly position, they were trying to limit the market, and this has made their current monopoly position that much stronger. I don't know how the law looks at "exclusive" deals, so that may or may not be of interest to the court.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-76290108753547392802011-02-16T18:04:23.710-08:002011-02-16T18:04:23.710-08:00Many seem to assume that, as a non-profit, OCLC ca...Many seem to assume that, as a non-profit, OCLC cannot be a monopolist, yet if they control a large enough portion of the market and their policies and practices discourage or prevent their clients from utilizing competing services, this seems adequate to support the label of monopolist. Further, OCLC's services have never been cheap.<br /><br />I don't know much about Skyriver. They may be excellent or they may be horrible. If their services are overpriced and under deliver OCLC should be able to compete without restrictive membership and service clauses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-61532405863315333482011-02-13T15:01:52.233-08:002011-02-13T15:01:52.233-08:00Note: I continue to get nasty comments from someon...Note: I continue to get nasty comments from someone using female names but sounding very much like a known male with very poor judgment. I'm just sending those to a spam file since there's no reason to subject others to his bile. I would, however, be interested in the experience of others who have posted about OCLC -- do you get hate mail/comments related to your posts? I noticed a few rather sharp comments to Karen Schneider's blog post, but numerous others (all by men) seem to have been spared, although they may just be quicker than I am to can the spam. I don't want to block anonymous posting since I know that many people can't post openly on this subject. <br /><br />Meanwhile, I welcome thoughtful comments, even those that disagree with my posts.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-78837984834612427322011-02-13T08:05:04.975-08:002011-02-13T08:05:04.975-08:00Jen and Wendy -- If you want to know about costs, ...Jen and Wendy -- If you want to know about costs, you should ask SkyRiver or read the statements of their customers. Marshall Breeding's excellent page on the lawsuit includes some letters that discuss costs:<br />http://www.librarytechnology.org/web/breeding/skyriver-vs-oclc/<br />I'm not terribly interested in the cost angle since I'm not likely to be a customer of either OCLC nor SkyRiver. <br /><br />In terms of "sharing" the database I should remind you that many libraries share their databases -- either through Z39.50 or APIs, or by making their entire catalog available in bulk. There is an attempt to centralize information about bulk data at CKAN:<br />http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic<br />That list includes one library vendor, Talis. However, if you are talking about SkyRiver and OCLC, I understand the idea to be use for payment (I believe the term in the legal documents is "reasonable" payment). As long as the technology permits it, it's hard to know why someone would not want paying users of their database. <br /><br />Wendy, if I had seen sarcasm or nastiness in the reply, I would have mentioned it. It may be a bias on my part, but I didn't find anything of that nature in the SkyRiver reply. I assume you haven't read it -- I recommend that you do. And if you think there is inappropriate language, you should blog that yourself. You CAN set the record straight, but you will need to do some work, have something substantial to say, AND come out of the closet of anonymous posting.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-46802838246401654942011-02-13T07:06:04.544-08:002011-02-13T07:06:04.544-08:00Why, when you reviewed OCLC's motion to dismis...Why, when you reviewed OCLC's motion to dismiss, did you present it as "Sarcasm and Nastiness", "Separate Realities" and "obfuscation". Yet your review of SkyRiver's response contained none of the equally nastiness, restating facts and obfuscation? Are you trying to present a fair and unbiased approach or are you very clearly pointing out your favoritism. Would just like to set the record straight. Thanks.Wendynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-64118085098629952842011-02-13T06:56:02.843-08:002011-02-13T06:56:02.843-08:00Do u really think cost will go down - in the long ...Do u really think cost will go down - in the long run - with III/SkyRiver? Do you really believe that III/Skyriver will free their data? Has anyone asked them to share their database? Anyone who has a III ils knows differently!Jennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-82790679063690630452011-02-11T09:31:28.582-08:002011-02-11T09:31:28.582-08:00Anyone think there is a chance that OCLC will reco...Anyone think there is a chance that OCLC will reconsider their approach? Perhaps a petition signed by their members would give them pause, if it were signed by enough members. They are firm in their defense of their public purposes and to many of us it appears that their monopoly stance is in direct conflict with those purposes.Linda Billshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05252961571217945906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-8312991819615809952011-02-10T10:59:48.255-08:002011-02-10T10:59:48.255-08:00Thanks for keeping up with this. Based on your an...Thanks for keeping up with this. Based on your analysis, it pains me to say that it seems like SkyRiver has a point. My mind spins with possibilities of a share-alike Worldcat! Free our data!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-65095022154516934722011-02-10T07:05:25.626-08:002011-02-10T07:05:25.626-08:00Good for you, Karen. Excellent analysis!Good for you, Karen. Excellent analysis!Sue Martinnoreply@blogger.com