I just posted an item to the TDN, reporting on OCLC’s “Research Software Contest”, and flagging a significant difference between their approach and that adopted by the team putting on Mashing up the Library.

It’s great to see OCLC supporting innovative approaches to library data in this way, and they certainly have some significant resources that the sector continues to benefit from. It strikes me as unfortunate - and unnecessary - that they have opted to force entrants to use OCLC resources, though. Is it one further indication of an increasingly out-dated attitude to libraries, library data, and the place of both in the wider world of information discovery, use, and reuse? Or is it just a silly mistake that they could fix before the closing date? I’m hoping it’s the latter.

Libraries do not exist in a vacuum. Nor do library data. We are surrounded by other sources of information, and we are surrounded by other ‘channels’ through which library resources should be brought to both actual and potential users.

Back in the dim and misty depths of the 1970s, there was huge value to libraries and their members in collaborative cataloguing efforts, and in the aggregation of those records for mutual benefit. The technology and processes were complex and expensive, and subscription-powered ‘co-operatives’ such as BLCMP (the precursor to Talis) and OCLC were an obvious approach to achieving effective economies of scale. Today, the world is a very different place. Today, libraries need to be visible not only to one another, but in a host of different contexts. Today, library catalogues are interrogated by their ultimate beneficiaries rather than (just) by librarian intermediaries. Today, various local, regional and national agendas mean that library information needs to be available alongside that from other libraries in the same city, other libraries of the same ‘type’ regionally, nationally or globally, and even in the context of non-library sites such as Amazon or LibraryThing. Every single one of those important agendas of today is significantly impeded when the visibility is derived from queries into a closed and expensive club, or a subscription-driven system such as WorldCat. Wouldn’t it be better if any library, anywhere, could contribute data about themselves free of charge, see information about their peers free of charge, and benefit from a robust and scalable Platform of services geared towards integrating library information with similar data from their peers, or plugging any of it into the non-library sites where our users really exist online? Isn’t it fortunate, then, that such a thing is possible, today?

Closed and restrictive used to work. It really doesn’t anymore, and if we as a sector don’t embrace open and inclusive, then people will simply go around us to information providers that do.

Closed silos of ‘owned’ data - bad thing

Closed competitions, that try to limit creativity and innovation - also bad.

Maybe we’ll get our collective act together for next year, and run one competition to jointly champion the cause of increasing the visibility and utility of library information? I’d happily discuss the idea with OCLC, SirsiDynix, or any of the other leaders in this space. OCLC really would have to drop their silly restrictive practices, though.

I have sufficient belief in the quality and value of OCLC services like xISBN to be sure they’d figure in a significant number of entries. If I can, why can’t OCLC believe in their own stuff enough to let the market decide whether or not to use them, rather than forcing them upon competition entrants and others?

Technorati Tags: Library 2.0, mashup, MUTL06, OCLC, Participation, Platforms, SirsiDynix, Talis, Talis Platform, TDN, Web 2.0, web services

Share This