OCLC Proposes New WorldCat Records Policy, Revamping Content and Approach

Emphasis on rights and responsibilities of OCLC contributing members, in contrast to legalistic previous version

Josh Hadro -- Library Journal, 04/07/2010

• Response to controversy that began in November 2008
• More measured and transparent approach
• "Club good" versus "public good"

OCLC today released a new draft policy on record use for the WorldCat bibliographic database, titled "WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative." OCLC also disseminated an accompanying FAQ regarding potential scenarios, and has set up an online feedback forum.

This document, the final product of the Record Use Policy Council, comes 18 months after the first proposed update to the 1987 Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records. That initial attempt, which came from OCLC management,  met with significant opposition from individual critics, as well as organizations including ARL and ICOLC, and was eventually withdrawn. The new policy "is very much a member document," noted Barbara Gubbin, Director, Jacksonville Public Library and Council co-chair, in an interview with LJ prior to today's release.

Rights and responsibilities
The new document delineates the record use rights and responsibilities of OCLC contributing members, in contrast to the previous version’s more abstract focus on the details of use and transfer of WorldCat records.
 
"It's very much a proposal for a code of good practice," said Jennifer Younger, President-Elect, OCLC Global Council and Edward H. Arnold Director of Libraries, University of Notre Dame, and the Council's other co-chair. Younger also pointed out that the new policy "enables libraries to do what they need to do...to make use of the data to benefit their library and others," adding, "we want people to innovate."

The policy links member rights and responsibilities to the broader responsibilities of OCLC as a steward organization, and seeks to persuade member libraries to take a more active interest in their shared investment supporting the WorldCat database. Member libraries are urged to consider the "very real danger that [WorldCat] will become fragmented and lose its integrity" without support of such a policy.

The policy offers sample language for agreements between members and third parties (agents that perform services) and notes terms and conditions for agreements between OCLC and such agents. Council members stressed, however, that OCLC already has existing agreements with a number of third parties covering many data transfer scenarios, with no further action on the part of libraries required.

New tack
Notable is the measured and more transparent approach. As Council co-chair Gubbin pointed out, the largest words on the document are “Draft For Community Review,” appearing above the document's title. Moreover, the coordinated announcement of explanatory webinars "specifically for the purpose of inviting questions," according to Younger, and the simultaneous release of a feedback web site are similarly indicative.

The Council also conscientiously avoided legalese to make it more accessible, Gubbin said. For example, the document has removed any mention of sole discretion and authorization of OCLC as arbiters of compliant use.

The policy has similarly adopted softer language on enforcement of the guidelines:

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.

Finally, the policy makes provisions for self-monitoring, addressing another criticism of the previous iteration, which held that OCLC could change or modify its terms at any time. Section 6 of the draft designates "a policy review at least every three years … conducted in an open and transparent way."

Collective versus public good
The policy also includes a glossary of defined terms, including a distinction between “public goods” versus “club goods,” or “collective goods.” The WorldCat database, described in the document as a "shared community resource," is clearly seen as a "club good," a service that is undiminished by mutual and repeated use, but that can exclude unauthorized parties “from enjoying the benefits of the good.”

“While [WorldCat] has a public purpose,” Karen Calhoun, OCLC VP of WorldCat and Metadata Services, told LJ, “it is not, in and of itself, a public good, in the economic sense.”

“It is the members of the cooperative who finally support the cooperative,” she said. “We need to look at their interest first, because they’re the long term caretakers. We want any use made of WorldCat data to benefit that cooperative.”

Similar examples cited in the policy include satellite television, online subscription news services, agricultural cooperatives, and credit unions.

Remaining concerns
The policy is aimed to foster data-sharing for various types of collaboration, recognizing the currernt dynamic environment. Despite the revisions, previous critics may not be mollified, especially those who question both the premise of the revision and OCLC's motivations (for more commentary, see the Code4Lib wiki).

The policy's stated intent describes two linked but separate goals, which some critics say are in tension with each other: "to encourage the widespread use of WorldCat bibliographic data while also supporting the ongoing and long-term viability and utility of WorldCat and WorldCat-based services such as resource sharing, cataloging, and discovery."

The comment period on the new policy will extend until May 20, at which time the Council will present a proposed policy to the OCLC Board of Trustees. If approved, the effective date of the new policy would then be determined by the Board.

Contributing to third parties
When asked about libraries contributing records to other projects like the Open Library, Council leaders pointed specifically to Question 6 of the accompanying FAQ. The answer puts the onus on libraries to determine the nature of the soliciting group or individual, as well as their intent regarding the records. Libraries then must decide whether that use is consistent with the policy.

In a follow-up email, Council leaders summarized:

The intent of the receiving organization is most important in making the decision to share. If the organization’s intent goes beyond the limits set by the policy, then data exchange is still possible if the organization has an agreement with OCLC to use the data in a way that benefits the OCLC cooperative.