I have used subfield t only a few times but on those occasions I have
omitted initial articles. I'm aware of the arguments against this (The
Hamlet v. Hamlet etc.). We are a working physics library. The point of
the subfield is index access. Articles in the index would be inconsistent
and impede this. Announcing that this is a programming issue to be taken up
with vendors sounds good. However, it is not a solution for production,
here, now, today.
Rob Atkinson
Information Resources Dept.
Fermilab
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beth Guay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 2:00 PM
Subject: Indexing 505 subfield "t"
We are implementing a new system and noticing the problem of indexing the
505 subfield "t" where
initial articles are concerned. I don't think systems are going the way of
programming to
"normalize" or recognize and ignore initial articles (I'm a cataloger not a
systems librarian,
pardon my ignorance). Would people on the MARC list care to comment? I think
it would benefit
patrons if catalogers left initial articles out of 505 subfield "t" as they
must often do in other
title fields. Of course in this day of record importing with no human
intervention, it
would have to be a standard.
Thanks,
Beth Guay
----------------------
Beth Guay
Serials Cataloger
Cataloging Dept., McKeldin Library
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
(301) 405-9329
fax (301) 314-9971
[log in to unmask]
|