Bib utilities WAS: RE: [Web4lib] Getting catalog software vendors to make more useablesoftware choices

[K.G. Schneider]

> >The three things I miss when I'm into heavy research mode:
> >
> >MARC output for Open Worldcat, which I also use heavily in my "finding
> mode"
> >
> >
> >
> You realize, of course, that it's a conscious choice of OCLC's not to
> offer that, because it would then compete with their cataloging revenue?
> The first Worldcat records that we got at UC, either through Z39.50 or
> the OpenURL, I can't remember which, were horribly mangled and grossly
> dumbed down, to the point of being useless. We insisted on better
> quality and the quality did improve some, but OCLC can't start giving
> away what it sells elsewhere. The "old" MELVYL catalog had a way to get
> a true MARC-formatted record in a download, but most "MARC" output or
> displays are the display format, not the exchange format. It's rather
> pathetic that we still have to resort to screen scraping in many cases.

Yes, I do... but I build my wish-lists based on what I need as a researcher,
not commercial/political realities. Also, not to sound too much like some
library users, but I did pay for Open Worldcat, as I recall. I realize that
from OCLC's point of view there is a need to keep these records from
freeloaders, but I pay taxes in one library district and pay tuition for a
private university. So why can't *I* get exports of Open Worldcat items, if
these libraries have (as OCLC puts it on their site) "1) holdings in
WorldCat, and 2) subscription access to the WorldCat database on the OCLC
FirstSearch service"? The answer is probably very complex and likely has a
lot to do with the feudal nature of libraries in this country and as many
authentication mechanisms as there are library systems.  

> NISO worked on a standard format for delivery of bib data to the
> bibliographic software programs, but it never got ballotted. Having a
> standard might help get vendor support.

That too! 

Karen G. Schneider
kgs at bluehighways.com