On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:04, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> 3) Re: Karen's observation that termOfAddress goes at the end because of
> tradition: I don't like this either.  What happens if there are two
> termsOfAddress, one which is understood to preceed the name (e.g. "Sir"),
> and the other which goes at the end?  Seems to me that the term thus
> ought to go in the correct order, particularly since XML/XSLT has no
> limitations on reordering elements.

Let me clarify what I said. The "Sir" goes after the name in the MARC
author field because the name is entered as it would sort. That is also
why names are entered as Smith, John -- because you want to file that
under Smith, not under John. And in the "tradition" of library
cataloging, name headings are entered in the same order in which they
will sort. Even if you wish to enter them in a different order, you need
to identify the parts so that you can sort them logically. I don't think
anyone expects to find "Sir Winston Churchill" listed under the "S"s in
a bibliography. Once you decide that the name will sort under the "C"s,
then you have to decide what comes next: Sir Winston, or Winston? You
can make arguments for either, but let me say that the "Sir" often is
conferred late in life (like Mick Jagger, getting sir'd at age 60), so
earlier entries for the same person will not have the "sir." And some
people will never remember to look for Sir Mick under "S" rather than
"M" (I'll always remember him as "just plain Mick"). So whether you code
this as:

<honorific>Sir</honorific>
<forenames>Mick</forenames>
<familyname>Jagger</familyname>

or

<forenames>Mick</forenames>
<familyname>Jagger</familyname>
<honorific>Sir</honorific>

you should be able to do whatever you want with it in terms of display
and the creation of a sort form.

My argument with MARC (which some people on this list are already sick
of hearing ;-) is that the ONLY name entry that we have is the one that
is authoritative, and therefore somewhat artificial -- not only in the
order of the terms, but sometimes the name used is different from the
name on the title page of the piece. I would like to see a display form
of the name (other than the 245 $c, which can contain all kinds of
stuff) as well as the authoritative form. The display form doesn't have
to be heavily parsed, but the authoritative form could be.

That said, it should be easy enough to take:

$a Churchill, Winston, $c Sir

and turn it into Sir Winston Churchill. It's going the other direction,
from the unparsed display form to the form that identifies all of the
parts of the name, that isn't easy.
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------