<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michele Ogle &#187; OCLC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://micheleogle.net/tag/oclc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://micheleogle.net</link>
	<description>So many books, so little time...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:18:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Shades of gray &#124; Information Wants To Be Free</title>
		<link>http://micheleogle.net/2009/11/shades-of-gray-information-wants-to-be-free/</link>
		<comments>http://micheleogle.net/2009/11/shades-of-gray-information-wants-to-be-free/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michele</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[librarianship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OCLC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micheleogle.net/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I guess what I’m trying to say is that we really can’t look at things as being so black and white. We can’t say open source=good, proprietary=bad. It’s not that simple. Stephen Abram is not a bad person because he wrote a crappy “position paper. OCLC isn’t necessarily evil. Open source vendors aren’t necessarily good. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I guess what I’m trying to say is that we really can’t look at things as being so black and white. We can’t say open source=good, proprietary=bad. It’s not that simple. Stephen Abram is not a bad person because he wrote a crappy “position paper. OCLC isn’t necessarily evil. Open source vendors aren’t necessarily good. We shouldn’t assume that a vendor is out to take us to the cleaners and steal all our data, but neither should we assume that a vendor has our best interests at heart (no matter how cool they or their representatives are). Things are really, really gray, and require a much more critical eye than we sometimes have by default.</p></blockquote>
<p>via <a href="http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2009/11/02/shades-of-gray/">Shades of gray | Information Wants To Be Free</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://micheleogle.net/2009/11/shades-of-gray-information-wants-to-be-free/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SkyRiver: New bibliographic utility</title>
		<link>http://micheleogle.net/2009/10/skyriver-new-bibliographic-utility/</link>
		<comments>http://micheleogle.net/2009/10/skyriver-new-bibliographic-utility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michele</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[cataloging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OCLC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SkyRiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micheleogle.net/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To garner some sustenance and survive, SkyRiver will need to differentiate itself from OCLC and provide a better option for at least some libraries. SkyRiver is emphasizing three differentiators: Higher Quality: Although SkyRiver is starting with a much smaller database of bibliographic records than OCLC currently claims–20 million compared to 144 million–the creators promise that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<p style="margin-left: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">To garner some sustenance and survive, SkyRiver will need to differentiate itself from OCLC and provide a better option for </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">at least </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">some libraries. SkyRiver is emphasizing three differentiators:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Higher Quality: Although SkyRiver is starting with a much smaller database of bibliographic records than OCLC currently claims–20 million compared to 144 million–the creators promise that it will offer higher quality both at the record and the aggregated database level. Although I’ve never worked closely and extensively with the OCLC Union Catalog</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (Is it still called that, or am I dating myself?)</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, it has had some quality issues in the past. Even when I was in library school in the mid-80’</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">s, using ye olde tyme 3,2,2,1 search statements</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">, the issue of the need for quality control was evident. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lower Costs: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">SkyRiver promises to provide more bib for the buck when compared to OCLC. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Marshall Breeding’s <a title="article about SkyRiver" href="http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6700415.html?nid=2671&amp;rid=#reg_visitor_id&amp;source=link">article about SkyRiver</a> in Library Journal </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> mentions that some libraries may be able to save up to 40 percent for their bibliographic services. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Exact pricing for SkyRiver records and services has not yet been released. </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Record Ownership</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> and Use</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">:</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Controversies and questions persist. Who owns the records contributed to a database of bibliographic records? What are the permissible uses of those records? The dillemas have plagued OCLC and its member libraries for decades. SkyRiver plans to cut through the Gordian knot by not claiming any ownership or rights regarding the records. </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2009/10/sky-me-a-river.html">Sky me a River | ALA TechSource</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://micheleogle.net/2009/10/skyriver-new-bibliographic-utility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

