Print

Print


Hello,

I think what Adrian refers to is the point that many ILS vendors tend to 
policies that lock bibliographic data away in silos. If libraries want 
to export their data from the product, they often need to buy additional 
licenses. That is naturally an issue to be carried on with the vendors 
how they create licenses for their customers, according to their 
business plans.

It's our common concern that Bibframe may be used just as a "product 
feature label" for continuing the same old policy to restrict libraries 
to get their bibliographic data processed, for example, to build union 
catalogs.

By adding open access APIs and smart linked data mechanims to library 
systems, we hope to overcome the issue, so libraries can fully embrace 
the promise the Semantic Web and Linked Open Data is making - free, 
unrestricted linked access to academic resources worldwide, anytime, 
from anywhere, by any person. In memoriam Aaron Swartz.

In a MARC world, we could have agreed that licensing bibliographic data 
packages is an orthogonal topic. MARC records were closed entities,  
sequentially produced in files, and transmitted in packages over a 
computer network, by a controlled workflow between known parties. But in 
a Bibframe'd world, the whole Bibframe concept simply won't work if 
external references in Bibframe streams would link to catalog entities 
that are behind access-restricted systems, just because libraries are 
not rich enough to pay their vendors for all the extra licenses.

So the quest is, how the building blocks around Bibframe are provided - 
if entities and resources are officially labeled with the term 
"Bibframe", who is allowed to re-use und re-distribute them without 
permission.

I would be very happy if software, deliverables, and access to resources 
that are needed to build and operate systems that can process Bibframe 
data are open sourced and liberally licensed. I personally see a new 
market for a new type of system vendors, with other competences and 
different viewpoints, influenced by the open-ness of the Semantic Web 
community.

Best regards,

Jörg


Am 01.02.13 17:37, schrieb Kevin Ford:
> Dear Adrian,
>
> IN re-reading your email, I may have conflated two distinct issues.  
> One being the licensing around the BIBFRAME model and the other, which 
> I didn't address but which you mention, that has to do with the 
> licensing of bibliographic data.
>
> The latter, at this time, is beyond the scope of BIBFRAME, in just the 
> same way that licensing issues surrounding data described in MARC does 
> not bear directly on the usage licensing of the MARC format itself.
>
> Warmly,
> Kevin
>
> On 02/01/2013 10:31 AM, Kevin Ford wrote:
>> Dear Adrian,
>>
>> This actually came up once before on this list [1], the summation of
>> which was, from Sally, BIBFRAME "will be [made available for use]
>> liberally like MARC."
>>
>> That said, we need to work on clearly articulating license issues.  Now
>> that we've reached a few milestones, we have some time to look into
>> these but the initial comment on this from November remains accurate: it
>> will be made with little or no restrictions.
>>
>> Suffice it to say, uptake is important and liberal licensing will foster
>> that.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> [1]
>> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1211&L=BIBFRAME&P=R5716&I=-3&X=482FBE44475D7F8C44 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/01/2013 04:27 AM, Adrian Pohl wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> as the conversation now gets beyond the mere data model for
>>> representing bibliographic data and moves to the discussion of future
>>> data exchange and protocols, I would like to point to another key
>>> aspect of a future bibliographic framework. It's the licensing aspect
>>> that already was discussed in 2007 after the publication of LoC's
>>> report "On the Future of Bibliographic Control" [1] that prepared the
>>> ground for Bibframe. At this time, some people were "concerned that
>>> the report lacks any discussion of a key component for any future of
>>> bibliographic data: open licensing and access" and published a
>>> response to the Library of Congress [2] (co-drafted by the Open
>>> Knowledge Foundation and Aaron Swartz, see [3]). As far as I know, LoC
>>> never reacted to this response. Since 2007, many libraries and related
>>> institutions have embraced open licensing. Thus, integrating a
>>> licensing policy into the bibliographic framework shouldn't be a big
>>> deal by now.
>>>
>>> I am curious whether it is planned to address the licensing aspect in
>>> the development of Bibframe and when this will happen. I would be
>>> happy if Bibframe made clear how the web-wide free flow of
>>> bibliographic data will be LEGALLY ensured and won't be hampered by
>>> intellectual property right and licensing conditions.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Adrian Pohl
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/
>>>
>>> [2] http://wiki.okfn.org/FutureOfBibliographicControl
>>>
>>> [3]
>>> http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/14/goodbye-aaron-swartz-and-long-live-your-legacy/ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Pohl
>>> - Linked Open Data -
>>> hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes NRW
>>> Tel: (+49)(0)221 - 400 75 235
>>> http://www.hbz-nrw.de
>>>