Hi, After meeting with Aaron Swartz of The Open Library, we thought having a shorter version might be good to get more signatories before Friday.
Aaron's prepared something here: http://www.okfn.org/wiki/OpenBibliographicData Again - comments appreciated. Do people think it should be more/less strong? Regards, Jonathan Jonathan Gray wrote: > Hi all, > > Below is a (rather long) draft response to the LoC draft report: > > http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl > > Any comments would be much appreciated! > > (Its also inline below.) > > Regards, > > Jonathan > > > = Open bibliographic data? - comments on draft report by the Working > Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control at the Library of Congress = > > 14th December 2007 > > > '''Rufus Pollock, The Open Knowledge Foundation''' [[BR]] > '''Jonathan Gray, The Open Knowledge Foundation''' [[BR]] > '''Peter Suber, The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources > Coalition''' [[BR]] > '''Aaron Schwartz, The Open Library'''[[BR]] > > > == Introduction == > > This document is a response to the call for comments on a draft released > by the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control on 30th > November 2007 [1]. > > We think it is laudable that the Working Group have recommended that the > Library of Congess takes a more active role in leading the library world > into 21st century. Their vision of a bibliographic control ecosystem > which is "collaborative, decentralized, international in scope and > web-based" (p. 1) is timely. > > However, we are concerned that there is no explicit mention of the > potential benefits of open licensing for bibliographic data. Over the > past few years, open licensing has facilitated the explosive growth of a > 'knowledge commons'. To give a few prominent examples: Open Access > journals, Open Educational Resources and Open Data in scientific > research [2] have all been enabled by licenses which permit material to > be freely re-used and re-distributed [3]. > > We believe open licensing would strongly help to catalyse the > flourishing of an information ecology for bibliographic data - by > allowing and encouraging anyone to share, modify and build on it. Openly > licensed bibliographic data would allow users and developers to: > * improve the quality of the data by correcting errors, and adding > ancillary information; > * attempt to harmonise and integrate data that is from multiple > sources, in different formats and which adheres to different sets of > standards; > * use technologies such as wikis and versioning systems to facilitate > the collaborative development of data [4]; > * host bibliographic data and experiment with distributed data > provision and access; > * combine bibliographic datasets with other material - such as > user-contributed reviews, images and 'tags'; > * build innovative (web) applications to explore and represent the > wealth of information contained in bibliographic records, e.g. through > datamining and/or visualization technologies [5]; > * extract structured, machine-readable data from bibliographic records > and to link this to other open datasets in the emerging semantic web of > data [6]. > > New kinds of technologies are emerging very rapidly - and we think that > one of the best ways for the library community to see the fruits of > these developments applied to bibliographic data is to permit greater > experimentation with the data by the wider technical community - and the > general public. Placing restrictions on how bibliographic records may be > re-used effectively inhibits community-led development and innovative > 'tinkering'. One of the implicit principles of more 'open' models of > development is that 'the most interesting thing to be done with your > material will be thought of by someone else'. This kind of thought > resonates strongly with the "decentralised", "dynamic", "collaborative" > ethos propagated in the report, in which users and third party > organisations are encouraged to play a more active role in bibliographic > control. > > == Summary of key comments == > > * The potential benefits of open licensing should be mentioned in the > draft. We've identified several places where such mention may be > appropriate. > * The draft should strive to acknowledge a broad spectrum of parties > who may contribute to an ecosystem of bibliographic control, and who > benefit from shared bibliographic data - including individual technical > developers, enthusiasts and a diverse variety of third part > organisations - rather than simply either libraries, library users and > commercial contractors. (Cf. comments on p. 1, par. 1) > * Open licensing can help to lower or remove transaction costs. (Cf. > comments on p. 1, par. 1) > * We urge that even if value-added data products or services are sold > in order to recover costs, openly licensing 'raw' bibliographic data is > still considered. (Cf. comments on p. 4, par. 3) > * The LC takes into account short and long term opportunities to create > 'public value' as well as opportunities for market growth when > considering making alterations to its pricing structure. (Cf. comments > on p. 8, par. 1; p. 13, sect. 1.1.4) > * The report should explicitly acknowledge significant work by > non-profit organisations in the areas of digitisation and bibliographic > control as well as contributions of commercial vendors. (Cf. comments on > p. 8, par. 2) > * The Library of Congress should take a leading role in encouraging > bibliographic data to be shared - encouraging other individual libraries > to make their data available under an open license where possible. (Cf. > comments on p. 8, par. 5) > * Open bibliographic data would encourage relevant groups to improve > and build on each other's work rather than doubling up effort in > parallel development. (Cf. comments on p. 9, par. 1) > * A strong culture of sharing bibliographic information may help > libraries not become over-dependent on third party contractors to > replace work currently done by Library of Congress. (Cf. comments on p. > 15, sect. 1.2) > * The products of digitizing material that is in the public domain > should be made available under an open license where possible. (Cf. > comments on pp. 19-20, sect. 2; p. 21, sect 2.4) > * The Library of Congress should implement changes in metadata > standards such that there is be a field within each bibliographic record > to specify the license the record is available under (Cf. comments on > pp. 21-26, sect. 3.) > > > == Comments on the Draft Report == > > N.B. We take 'bibliographic data' to refer to metadata concerning > library holdings - primarily in the form of bibliographic records. > > === Introduction === > > p. 1, par. 1 > > "Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and > with the active collaboration of library users." > * The implied distinction - between formal cooperation with the private > sector and input from ordinary library users - may become increasingly > blurred. We think it would be valuable to recognise that there is > potential for a broad spectrum of potential collaborators ranging > between these two poles - including individual technical developers and > smaller groups who might wish to re-use or add value to bibliographic > data without necessarily, e.g., contracting with the relevant producer. > > "Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen > quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static." > * Open licensing would help to ensure that bibliographic control is > dynamic and that change happens quickly by eradicating the requirement > that every user asks permission from every data producer for each new > application of bibliographic information. > > "Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in > order to retain their relevance as information providers." > * As mentioned above, openly licensing bibliographic material would > help to accelerate this transition by allowing third parties to > experiment with innovative ways of re-using it and building on it - > including the development of new kinds of applications, services, > plugins, and so on. > > > === Background === > > p. 4, par. 3 > > "According to current congressional regulations, LC is permitted to > recover only direct costs for services provided to others. As a result, > the fees that the Library charges do not cover the most expensive aspect > of cataloging: namely, the cost of the intellectual work. . The > economics of creating LC's products have changed dramatically since the > time when the Library was producing cards for library catalogs. It is > now time to reevaluate the pricing of LC's product line in order to > develop a business model that allows LC to more substantially recoup its > actual costs." > > * Reevaluating product pricing is arguably one way among several > towards cost recovery. Also, while the LC might recoup costs through > revenue generated through value-added products and services - we hope > this does not preclude any effort to encourage the circulation of its > raw data. > > === Guiding Principles === > > p. 7, par. 3 > > "Different communities of bibliographic practice have grown up around > different resource types: library collections of books and journals, > archives, journal articles, and museum objects and images. As these > resources and others become increasingly accessible through the Web, > separation of the communities of practice that manage them is no longer > desirable, sustainable, or functional. Bibliographic control is > increasingly a matter of managing relationships—among works, names, > concepts, and object descriptions—across communities. Consistency of > description within any single environment, such as the library catalog, > is becoming less significant than the ability to make connections > between environments: Amazon to WorldCat to Google to PubMed to > Wikipedia, with library holdings serving as but one node in this web of > connectivity. In today's environment, bibliographic control cannot > continue to be seen as limited to library catalogs." > > * Again, open licensing could be mentioned here, given this projected > decentralisation and the importance of widespread collaboration among > many different parties. > > p. 8, par. 1 > > "Once considered a public good, information access is today a commodity > in a rapidly-growing marketplace. Many information resources formerly > managed in the not-for-profit sector are now the objects of a > significant for-profit economy. Entities in this latter economy have > financial capabilities far beyond those of libraries. Further, they have > the resources to engage in large scale research and development." > > * We think its crucial here to strike a balance here between > encouraging public benefit and market growth. Open licensed > bibliographic data would allow the general public to benefit from being > able to freely re-use and re-distribute the it, as well as commercial > organisations to benefit from being able to re-use it in their products > and services. Increased commercial exploitation would also arguably > indirectly generate more revenue for government organisations such as LC > through an increase in taxable profits. Open licensing also allows > community driven development, which may in some cases yield similar or > even preferable results to well funded closed models of development. > Also open licensing is becoming increasingly popular for large > for-profit enities, who may, for example, charge for associated services. > > p. 8, par. 2 > > "Libraries of today need to recognize that they are but one group of > players in a vast field, and that market conditions necessitate that > libraries interact increasingly with the commercial sector. One example > of such interaction can be found in the various mass digitization > projects in which for-profit organizations are making use of library > resources and library metadata." > > * It is also important to recognise new partnerships with non-profit > organisations in this area - such as the important digitisation work > being carried out by the Internet Archive and by The Open Library with > members of the Open Content Alliance. > > p. 8, par. 5 > > "Sharing, however, is not a strategy for LC alone. The entire library > community and its many partners must also be part of it." > > * Again, by advocating liberal licensing practices on a wide scale - > the LC could effectively encourage libraries to scale their > bibliographic control operations by sharing their data. > > p. 9, par. 1 > > "Is there duplicate effort being expended? Are there possible > partnerships that could reduce the burden on the Library?" > > * Open licensing in this area would encourage relevant groups to > improve and build on each other's work rather than doubling up effort in > parallel development. > > p. 9, par. 4 > > > "In addition, the standards landscape in the library field is murky, > with many different organizations working on similar standards in a > non-coordinated fashion." > > * See comments on p. 9, par. 1, above. > > === Findings and Recommendations === > > p. 11, sect. 1.1 > > "The Working Group identified three primary areas of redundancy in the > bibliographic production process: > 1. the supply chain, wherein some data are created by publishers and > vendors and later re-created by library catalogers; > 2. the modification of records within the library community, wherein > such modifications are not shared, even though they could be useful to > others; and > 3. the expenses that are incurred when individual libraries must > purchase records because the sharing of those records is prohibited or > restricted." > > * This whole section on increased sharing and eliminating redundancies > is an opportune place to allude to the potential of open licensing. > > p. 12, sect. 1.1.1.1 & 1.1.2.1 > > "1.1.1.1 All: Be more flexible in accepting bibliographic data from > others (e.g., publishers, foreign libraries) that do not conform > precisely to U.S. library standards." > > "1.1.2.1 All: Develop workflow and mechanisms to use data and metadata > from network resources, such as abstracting and indexing services, > Amazon, IMDb, etc., where those can enhance the user's experience in > seeking and using information. > > * Its likely that some form of liberal licensing is requisite for > utilising third party data (1.1.1.1) and in re-purposing existing > metadata (1.1.2.1) on a large scale. > > p. 13, sect. 1.1.4 > > "1.1.4 Re-Examine the Current Economic Model for Data Sharing in the > Networked Environment > 1.1.4.1 LC: Convene a representative group consisting of libraries > (large and small), vendors, and OCLC members to address costs, barriers > to change, and the value of potential gains arising from greater sharing > of data, and to develop recommendations for change. > 1.1.4.2 LC: Promote widespread discussion of barriers to sharing data. > 1.1.4.3 LC: Reevaluate the pricing of LC's product line with a view to > developing a business model that enables more substantial cost recovery." > > * We strongly suggest that the public good (or the economic notion of > 'social welfare'), in addition to cost recovery, should be taken into > account in the analysis of these issues. Particularly given the trend > setting role it is suggested that LC takes in the wider world of > bibliographic control. > > p. 15, sect. 1.2 > > "Long-term dependence on Library of Congress bibliographic services > leaves the users of those services increasingly vulnerable to any > changes in them. > > Long-term reliance on Library of Congress leadership and on its > provision of cataloging records leads libraries—even some large > libraries with relatively plentiful staff—to think that they bear no > responsibility, individually or collectively, for sharing substantively > in the work of > bibliographic control." > > * Note the same would be true if, for example, more libraries > outsourced bibliographic work to 'closed' private contractors to replace > core functions that had previously been fulfilled by LC. It seems that a > stronger culture of sharing and exchanging data between libraries > (perhaps in addition to third party contractors and contributions) is a > more sustainable strategy that would leave libraries in a better > position in the longer term - and able to do at least some work 'in house'. > > p. 16, sect. 1.2 > > "All types of libraries will contribute to the best of their abilities > and resources to the "public good" that comes from bibliographic control > and resource sharing." > > * Again, we strongly suggest that this is factored into the kinds of > discussions and analyses recommended in 1.1.4 (cf. comments on p. 13, > sect. 1.1.4). > > p. 18, sect. 1.3 > > "There will be increased sharing of authority data between libraries and > between library systems and systems from other communities, with library > authority data available to anyone working with bibliographic data. > Economies will be realized by minimizing the number of times the same > entity needs to be researched. Exchange of information about the same > name from one system to another will be made simpler and more reliable. > Access to data will be unimpeded and barriers to using data will be > minimized." > > * This is another opportune moment to mention the potential benefits of > open licensing. > > pp. 19-20, sect. 2 & p. 21, sect 2.4 > > "2.4 Encourage Digitization to Allow Broader Access" > > * Though, as stated above, our primary interest in these comments is in > bibliographic metadata, we also advocate making the digitised images of > material that is in the public domain available under an open license > where possible. > > pp. 21-26, sect. 3 > > * It would be extremely valuable if LC encouraged all library records > to have a standard metadata field that that included information on the > license of the library record itself. > > p. 23, sect. 3.1 > > "Library bibliographic data will move from the closed database model to > the open Web-based model wherein records are addressable by programs and > are in formats that can be easily integrated into Web services and > computer applications. This will enable libraries to make better use of > networked data resources and to take advantage of the relationships that > exist (or could be made to exist) among various data sources on the Web." > > * Open licensing could greatly help to facilitate the emergence of such > a 'open' model. > > p. 28, sect. 4.1 > > "Library bibliographic data will be used in a wide variety of > environments, and interoperability between library and non-library > bibliographic applications will increase/improve. > > Library catalogs are seen as valuable components in an interlocking > array of discovery tools." > > * Again, this is a particularly opportune place to mention the > possibility of using a liberal license. > > p. 31, sect. 4.3.1.2 > > "4.3.1.2 LC: Provide LCSH openly for use by library and non-library > stakeholders." > > * Ditto. > > pp. 33-4, sect. 5.1 > > * We stronly advocating that the 'public good' be taken into account > while building an evidence base. (Cf. p. 13, sect. 1.1.4) > > == References == > > All page numbers refer to the Draft Final Report of the Working Group > <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-draft-11-30-07-final.pdf>. > > [1] Letter from the Working Group – November 30, 2007 > <http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-memo-11-30-07.pdf> > > [2] According to the Directory of Open Access Journals > <http://www.doaj.org/> there are now just under 3000 Open Access > journals with over 160,000 articles. See Open Access News > <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html> for more on open > projects in scholarly publishing and research. OER (Open Educational > Resources) Commons <http://www.oercommons.org/> is a major portal for > open course content. Science Commons <http://sciencecommons.org/> is a > significant proponent of open licensing for scientific research data. > > [3] Creative Commons and Talis both maintain open licenses such as the > Creative Commons Attribution license > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> and the Open Database > License > <http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/>. > Another frequently used open license is the GFDL, which Wikipedia's > content is licensed under. For a more comprehensive list see > <http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses>. > > [4] The Open Library is a prominent project that is currently > experimenting with versioning in bibliographic data > <http://www.openlibrary.org/>. > > [5] To give an example, many developers are exploring different uses of > the open-source suite of tools from MIT's Simile project > <http://simile.mit.edu/>, which allows large datasets to be represented > on a timeline. > > [6] The WC3 Community Project 'Linking Open Data' > <http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData> > which includes Tim Berners-Lee is currently pioneering work in this area. > > > Rufus Pollock wrote: >> Jonathan Gray wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The Library of Congress has asked for comments on a draft produced by >>> a Working Group they initiated on the 'Future of Bibliographic Control'. >>> >>> As some of you may have seen I recently blogged about this: >>> >>> http://blog.okfn.org/2007/12/06/the-future-of-bibliographic-control-and-licensing-policies-for-bibliographic-data/ >>> >>> >>> >>> The deadline for public comments is 15th December. I think it would >>> be great if we could submit some brief notes on the potential >>> benefits of openly licensing bibliographic data! >> We should definitely draft something. Would you be happy to put >> something together and then post it to the list (or on the wiki with a >> link for the list). >> >> Looking through the PR from the LC in your mail (not included here) >> some potential points to make would be: >> >> * Best way to achieve sharing and deliver value for a publicly funded >> ORG such as LC is to make biblio metadata *openly* available. Why? >> * More bugfixing, possibilities for 'wiki-like' management of data >> etc => better quality data >> * Allows for possibility of distributed data provision and access >> (reducing load, reducing latency, risk of downtime etc etc) >> * Better access both in terms of multiple forms/formats and others >> designing a better interface (see comments in a recent blog post [1]) >> * Possibilities for reuse and recombination with other data sources >> * Must emphasize we are not talking about their content at this point >> just the *metadata* >> * Might also want to point out that for content in which there are no >> rights problems (i.e. public domain) should make that stuff openly >> available for same reason. >> * Overall: for publicly funded bodies open approaches maximize social >> welfare! >> >> [1]:<http://blog.okfn.org/2007/10/31/british-history-online-why-the-restrictions/> >> >> >> >> >>> Does anyone know if any groups or individuals have already submitted >>> comments along these lines? >> No-one to my knowledge but that might not be saying much ... >> >>> Can anyone think of any organisations/individuals who might be >>> interested in helping out with this? >> Should obviously contact archive.org/openlibrary. Paul from Talis has >> already posted so it looks like something is happening there. Might >> want to also try contacting CC (perhaps Jon Phillips) though the time >> constraints might be a little tight. >> >> ~rufus > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
