I feel that there has to be a better solution than OCLC and MARC21 to share cataloging records. A solution that is in part not based on a business model that prohibits sharing all together. In this sense, several digital library initiatives are a good start. I also think that using catalogers’ skills for metadata in digital library initiatives is a testament that professionals can change and still remain relevant.

I found the report as interesting for what it didn‘t say than for what it did. (I don’t blame R2 for this… I believe they were given a particular task by LC and did it.)

They didn’t do any analysis of who really benefits from LC data. I think if they had, OCLC would have come out on top. Since LC records are the ones most sought-after for copy cataloging, it stands to reason that there are multiple uses of LC’s original records on OCLC, and that OCLC makes money off of each use. (As did RLG, WLN and others while they existed.) So while it is true that members of the library community are benefiting from LC’s cataloging, a number of those members are also paying for it, but not paying LC, and the cataloging services haven’t returned any part of their earnings to LC for this use (AFAIK).

As you mention, they didn’t question whether “MARC records” is even the right question. Somehow it seems obvious that we have to address the fact that we have a bibliographic data format that is so onerous that libraries prefer to wait for an average of 3-6 months for copy cataloging to become available rather than create a record (p. 12)! Think of what those 3-6 months in which an item isn’t visible in the catalog mean to user service.

The part that got to me the most, however, was the statement that 80% of libraries feel a need to edit copy that they do receive. Only 50% of those edits are ‘re-shared’ (p.7). I was surprised to see that none of the respondents cited cost as a reason for not re-uploading their changes, but in looking at the original survey, cost was not one of the options provided for selection. I find this curious, since to my knowledge cost is a reason why many edits do not go back to OCLC. Clearly having a way that the sharing of edits is technologically seamless and not a financial burden is a key element to increased sharing and better overall cataloging efficiency.

Would you be willing to put a number to “for some time”? 5, 10, 15 years?

From that perspective, isn’t borrowing a book (which the borrowers haven’t paid for) bad business as well?

Reuse of library data outside the library silo should be a huge goal of our community. I really admire your tirelessness in bringing linked data and library metadata communities to the same table.