"Provide cost-effective, affordable options for member libraries to add their holdings."

The current economy has created serious budgetary shortfalls and constraints for many libraries, making it difficult for these libraries to meet the commitment to add their holdings to WorldCat.

I appreciate your blog post regarding the encroachments, and I hope that it will become part of the policy draft going forward. I think it would be helpful to have that rationale move with the draft so that others reading the (revised) policy will see that rationale in black and white.

Instead of making all of Worldcat's data open and freely available to everyone, could Worldcat be made available by agreement to competitors (Skyriver is the one that comes to my mind, but I'm sure there are others) in a reciprocal, trusting way that could benefit all three parties (the OCLC cooperative, the competitor, and libraries)?

I would feel a lot better about this policy if it included a clear acknowledgement that competition in the library services marketplace is to be welcomed and embraced for the benefit of libraries. This is well addressed in Section 4(f) ("Entering into agreements to share [worldcat data] as broadly as possible with partner organizations and members' agents"). Appendix 1 and 2, though, seem to dictate that only OCLC will be able to enter into agreements that would allow for competitors.

Libraries are notoriously independent - we want to do what we think is best for our users, in our (economic, geographic, etc.) situation. I guess I'm hoping that this policy will recognize this independence and trust that OCLC members are interested in (and know something about) what's best for our institutions and our patrons.

Last but not least, I want to publicly thank the Council for the process that's taking place. I don't expect the final policy to be exactly what I want it to be, but that's part of the give and take of any collective. I sincerely appreciate the fact that this give and take is happening, and happening publicly, and happening in a way that includes anyone who cares to comment.

Joe M.

Thanks for your comments. We have referred your questions/comments about CatExpress, data quality, and financial incentives for cataloging to the OCLC WorldCat and Cataloging Services group.

As to our intent (what we hope to accomplish), it is stated in the third paragraph of the policy document: "to encourage the widespread use of WorldCat bibliographic data while also supporting the ongoing and long-term viability and utility of WorldCat and of WorldCat-based services such as resource sharing, cataloging, and discovery."

We have deliberately taken an approach to the policy that is based not on the ownership of records and the specifics of what members can and can't do with them, but one that is based on a members' willingness to commit to a code of good practice that will sustain the OCLC cooperative's shared resource, WorldCat, over time. Our approach vests rights and responsibilities in OCLC members and asks them to use judgment in exercising them.

In this context and with respect to your question about members' making their catalogs available through consortia or Z39.50, we hope that FAQs 3, 11, and 12
(http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/default.htm) will provide helpful information. We recognize that members want to be able to share their data with others, and we want the policy to support this sharing, provided that doing so either benefits the cooperative or does not diminish the value of WorldCat to the cooperative.

--Record Use Policy Council

Ann M. Williams

Thanks for your input. We posted a lengthy comment on the community blog on April 13, 2010 at 1:38 PM in which we attempted to describe encroachments that threaten the long-term sustainability of WorldCat and the services built upon it--services on which OCLC members rely. We said in part:

"Consider what would happen if WorldCat (or a significant portion of it) were released into the public domain: in transferring large swathes of WorldCat records to non-member organizations, members in effect would be transferring the cooperative’s chief asset to organizations with no obligation to invest in it. Our analysis suggests that this would increase free riding, diminish the incentive to be a member, and eventually compromise the economic viability of the cooperative. The utility of the database would also be compromised as WorldCat fragments, resulting in a less comprehensive record supply, scattering efforts at collaborative knowledge organization, raising the costs of resource sharing, and reducing the global discoverability and visibility of members’ collections."

At the recent OCLC Global Council meeting, we heard other suggestions for more clarification of various sections of the policy document. We will be taking all of the feedback into account as we begin the next round of policy revisions, prior to submitting a final version to the OCLC Board of Trustees at the end of May.

--Record Use Policy Council

"The policy should begin with a clear identification of the major encroachments that threaten the economic, technical, or
operational sustainability of WorldCat and should emphasize the need to preserve the characteristics that make WorldCat valuable over time: quality, comprehensiveness, and authoritativeness... it is essential that the policy clearly articulate the relationship between potential threats to WorldCat and actions authorized under the policy."(recommendation 4)

What are the encroachments that threaten the sustainability of Worldcat? Specifically, what are some of the economic, technical and operational threats that this policy is trying to avoid?

"OCLC members are intent upon building and benefiting from a future in which WorldCat is available for reasonable use on a non-discriminatory basis not only to members, but to other partners as well." (recommendation 4)

I think this is an excellent description of my position as an OCLC member.

Thanks,

Joe M.

Thanks for your comments. We will take them into account as we look again at Section 5 of the draft policy, which outlines the process that follows a violation of the code of conduct. It reads "OCLC member use of data extracted from the WorldCat database is carried out in a diverse and rapidly-changing environment. It is, therefore, impossible to anticipate all of the conceivable uses to which members might want or need to put WorldCat data. OCLC members are encouraged to discuss with OCLC any uses that do not appear to be covered by this policy. If a particular use is determined to not be covered, OCLC and the member will seek a mutually agreeable resolution of the matter. If, after six months, no such resolution has been reached, OCLC will refer the matter to the OCLC Global Council for prompt advice on how to proceed."

--Record Use Policy Council

Libraries currently are purchasing workstations with Windows 7. The OCLC cataloging software client Connexions does NOT work on Windows 7, management has stated some time in the next year there will be an upgrade but meanwhile libraries can't use the software on new machines.

If OCLC wanted to technically move to a browser based version, or upgrade the software to Java which wouldn't have the problem that would be fine, but they have dragged their feet and not met their responsibilities. They are a software vendor. We pay software maintenance to them. They need to keep the software upgraded to work with new versions of operating systems. This is not an idealistic policy thing, this is practicalities. Our cataloging staff tell us they cannot use the browser version of Connexions. How did they get to the point that this new OS is out there everywhere and OCLC does not support it?

Is it because they do not have competition, they have a monopoly, so they don't have to keep their software upgraded? This does not make sense. And if they do not provide sufficient support for services of course a library would take all the records they had already created and updated and use them in another system.

Where is the requirement that OCLC provide the services needed by the libraries? When will there be a version of Connexion that works with Windows 7? What is their strategic plan if the result of their planning is that they have not supported this Operating System that most of their customers require? Do they plan to just tell the libraries, tough?

It seems to me the attitude of OCLC is "We own the universe, eat dirt" when it comes to requirements of their libraries. This policy promotes that attitude.

What would happen if a library "interprets the code of good practice in a differently way than the Record Use Policy Council"? Are there any sanction mechanisms implemented in the policy? Which consequences would a library face which violates the policy as it is interpreted by the Record Use Policy Concil?

It won't be legal consequences, I believe, because the policy isn't grounded on copyright law as you confirmed. So it only can be consequences internal to OCLC. Are there any statements about the process that follows a violation of the code of conduct? Do sanction mechanisms exist? Or do you just count on the OCLC members that they'll follow the code of conduct in the way the Record Use Policy Council interprets it and will ask for permission if they intend to use the records in a way not covered by the policy?

'Some say adding WorldCat records to the public domain would enable new bibliographic projects to flourish, neither overseen by OCLC nor constrained by its data policies. Of course, these projects could then compete with OCLC to be the most prominent access point to library bibliographic materials."

Upon reading this I have to ask myself a couple questions:
- Is competition a good/bad thing for the library community?
- Is competition a good/bad thing for OCLC?
- Is the policy ultimately intended to stifle competition for OCLC as a vendor?

I believe that competition to development new tools would be a definite benefit for the community and ultimately better for OCLC as an organization. Competition encourages alternate strategies and innovation.

Competition for OCLC as a vendor would encourage the organization to be more innovative, cost effective, and responsive to the changing information economy.

Solidifying a hold on the bibliographic data would only encourage a monopoly. Monopolies rarely, if ever, benefit the public good or encourage innovation for anyone outside the monopoly holder.

The earlier policy certainly gave the feel that OCLC wanted to secure its exclusive hold. This version is improved, but doesn't fundamentally embrace the public good. Rather it still reads as if the organization protecting its market share at the expense of innovation the library community needs more of...not less.

Thanks for your message. You are correct in your assessment that we had the concept of a social contract in mind as we drafted this policy for the OCLC cooperative. The policy is not about the legal issues surrounding copyright of WorldCat as a whole or the copyright of an individual library's catalog. The policy is about OCLC members' willingness to commit to a code of good practice that will sustain the value and utility of WorldCat over time. As we interpret that code of good practice, it would exclude licensing an individual online catalog containing a substantial number of records drawn from WorldCat under a PDDL license. In addition, we have chosen not to quantitatively define what 'substantial' is, because the policy relies on members' best judgment and self-governing behaviors in these matters.

--Record Use Policy Council

Thanks for your suggestions. We will consider them. In reply to your question about the icon (Sect. 3.B.4): actually we did not have a member's online catalog in mind. We were thinking about some sort of new collaborative work based substantially on WorldCat data--like a subject-based portal for example, created from combining certain records from multiple member catalogs. Additionally, we were thinking the use of the icon would be an option, not a requirement. We will reconsider Section 3.B.4 and try to make it clearer.

--Record Use Policy Council

I wonder whether the proposed proscription of Public Domain licensing is tenable from a legal perspective. You say in the FAQs:

"OCLC only claims copyright rights in WorldCat as a compilation. Those rights are based on OCLC's intellectual contribution to WorldCat as a whole, including OCLC's selection, arrangement and coordination of the material in WorldCat."

As far as I can tell this is in line with copyright law that protects databases if they are creative which means based on an original selection and arrangement.

But don't member libraries do the same with their databases making an "intellectual contribution" to their local catalog including their "selection, arrangement and coordination of the material" in their databases? Doesn't follow a copyright claim on the local databases by member libraries out of these circumstances?

I think it might very probably the case that as much as OCLC has a copyright on WorldCat as a whole each individual member library has a copyright on their local catalogs, save members have signed a contract where they give up these rights.

Second question:
You say OCLC has a copyright on WorldCat as a whole. But why should that mean a member library couldn't put their data in the Public Domain? They obviously are publishing only a tiny fraction of data that also is in WorldCat. Why should that violate OCLC's copyright on the entire database? When is a portion of data big enough that it's freeing violates OCLC's copyright? Your argument "if enough members did this, it would diminish the long-term viability and utility of WorldCat to the OCLC cooperative" doesn't seem very strong to me from a legal perspective. It might work as a "social contract" but without legal grounding. (Anyway, I don't get it why libraries should sign a contract which takes their control over their own data.)

In Europe we have a quite vague specification when database copyright is violated. The European Union's Database Directive says the whole database and "substantial parts" should be protected (see here, (41)). Although the directive is vague, I think it's clear that under European law the data of one OCLC member library wouldn't be considered a "substantial part" of WorldCat.

So there are at least two arguments which make it hard to believe that member libraries would violate OCLC's copyright by releasing their data. Rather it is quite possible that OCLC interferes with member's copyright by forbidding Public Domain licenses.

I would be glad to read your thoughts and explanations concerning these questions.

1) Maintaining member-contributed data including holdings information

2) Maintaining policies, standards, and training and support services to assure that the WorldCat database is accurate and that bibliographic records and related data are created at the fullest possible level

3) Support the public purpose of “Furthering access to the world’s information and reducing the rate of rise of per-unit costs” by limiting less-than-full bibliographic data and proactively eliminating duplicate records from the WorldCat database.

Without them, the cost-effectiveness of using WorldCat as a utility will continue to drop.

Also, I'm not in favor of the proposed definition of OCLC WorldCat data. However, it should be written into the glossary so that everyone knows what is proposed and discovery as to whether state-supported public institutions can even agree to it.

Lastly, the branding requirement (Sect. 3.B.4) suggests that individual library catalogs will need to utilize the icon. Is this what's meant?

Daniel CannCasciato

Libraries are not required to filter or restrict access to records available through Z39.50. Please see question 3 in the FAQ at http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/default.htm for more information.

-- Record Use Policy Council

We feel that re-licensing a member library catalog containing records extracted from WorldCat (as Adrian suggests in his comment to our blog) under a Public Domain and Dedication License (http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ would violate the intent of the draft policy, because by definition such a step makes that portion of WorldCat a “public good.” The Creative Commons Zero license (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) would have the same effect. In both cases, subsequent users and transferors of the data would have no restrictions or requirements whatever. For the reasons stated in our long comments above, if enough members did this, it would diminish the long-term viability and utility of WorldCat to the OCLC cooperative.

–Record Use Policy Council

13. What is 'WorldCat data' in the context of this policy? How do I know if I have received 'WorldCat data'? [Added 13 April 2010]

In the context of the policy, WorldCat data is metadata for an information object, generally in the form of a record or records encoded in MARC format, whose initial source is or was the WorldCat bibliographic database.

You have received WorldCat data when (1) you have extracted it directly from the WorldCat database using one of OCLC's services for members (e.g., Connexion, WorldCat Cataloging Partners, CatExpress, the OCLC Z39.50 Cataloging Service, Batch Processing services) or under the terms of a non-member agreement with OCLC; or (2) you have extracted it from an online catalog or another source to which extracted WorldCat data has been transferred or made available.

Identifying WorldCat as the source of data that has been transferred or made available downstream of the initial extraction from WorldCat can sometimes be complex. A combination of the following data elements in a bibliographic record can help determine if the record was initially extracted from WorldCat:

An OCLC Number along with
- the 001 field that includes value characters "ocm" or "ocn" and/or
- the 035 field that includes the value "(OCoLC)" and/or
- the 994 field

14. I've noticed some inconsistencies between the policy and the document describing "OCLC community norms." Which document is correct? [Added 13 April 2010]

Occurrences of the phrase "OCLC community norms" link to the OCLC Principles of Cooperation, a foundation document of the OCLC cooperative that was adopted by the OCLC Members Council in 1996. Some sections of the 1996 Principles document are out of date or inconsistent with the draft policy, most notably the bullet point limiting use of OCLC records, systems and services to "OCLC authorized users." The draft policy Section 3A, paragraph 3, subparagraph A supersedes this statement in the Principles document. The OCLC Global Council is currently working to update the Principles document.

--Record Use Policy Council