Bob,
Other than hating my example, do you have any comments on the multiple
use of fields? Because that was the main point of my post: that the
compromises that we see often have to do with trying to perform
multiple functions with a single field. Do you agree with that, or do
you see other reasons for the choices made in areas like title proper
and publisher (and I may be thinking mainly of the AACR1 options on
publisher, since those are the cataloging rules I learned)?
kc
Quoting Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>:
> Transcription is a compromise. I point out that
>
>
>
> Semantic Web FOR DUMMIES
>
>
>
> is also not transcribed "as is." It is probably not an exact
> transcription of what's on the title page because it ignores line
> breaks. What's actually on the title page is probably something like
>
>
>
> Semantic Web
>
> FOR
>
> DUMMIES
>
>
>
> And that transcription also ignores spacing and justification-what's
> really on the title page is probably centered:
>
>
>
> Semantic Web
>
> FOR
>
> DUMMIES
>
>
>
>
>
> But also, what's on the title page is no doubt a different font and
> the font sizes of the different words might differ from the font I'm
> using to "transcribe." So THAT isn't "as is" either. Even a
> photograph of the title page would not be "as is" because it would
> probably be a different size from the title page and printed on a
> different kind of paper or not printed at all.
>
>
>
> All these things could make a difference in identifying, to see if
> two books are the same. And in fact this sort of thing DOES make a
> difference sometimes. But there's a limit to what can (or should) be
> done and current transcription rules represent a compromise between
> creating a transcription that goes all out and creating a
> transcription that is usable and accurate for 99.99% of the cases.
> There's a line between what we're willing to accept as "accurate
> transcription" and what we're not. Karen's line is a tiny bit beyond
> the line given in current transcription guidelines. But lines could
> be placed way beyond her line-her transcription is also
> "sorta/kinda/almost." If the reader of a record is aware that (a)
> case has been changed; (b) line breaks are ignored; (c)
> justification and other typographical details such as font size are
> ignored, then the reader of the record can compensate and conclude
> with a more than reasonable basis that two books are or are not the
> same.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
>
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine
> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R.
> Snow, 1842.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Description and Access functions in a
> post-MARC environment?
>
>
>
> Quoting Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> From a technical viewpoint I think that we *should* have both
>
>>> transcribed strings and "data" in our descriptions, since they have
>
>>> different functions.
>
>>
>
>> Perhaps I'm more technologist than librarian (someday someone will
>
>> probably quote me on that), but I could use a refresher as to why
>
>> the transcribed strings are useful. I get why the colocation
>
>> function of identifiers for attributes like publisher and
>
>> publication location are important. In the current era, though, I
>
>> don't see the use cases for transcribed strings so am hard pressed
>
>> to assign a value to the activity.
>
>
>
> Peter, I was hoping we'd hear from some catalogers, but here's my take:
>
>
>
> The transcribed parts are intended to be a surrogate for the title
>
> page (primarily). That way, if you have metadata for two books (or one
>
> book and metadata for a similar book) you should be able to compare
>
> the transcribed fields and see if they are the same.
>
>
>
> HOWEVER...
>
>
>
> Not all of the transcribed data is transcribed "as is." For example,
>
> the case of titles is changed to sentence case, regardless of the case
>
> of the title on the title page. This is because the title, like so
>
> many data elements in cataloging, performs more than one function in
>
> the catalog record. It is both a surrogate (which in fact it isn't
>
> quite) and an entry element. So although titles often look like:
>
>
>
> Semantic Web FOR DUMMIES
>
>
>
> that would be "transcribed" as
>
>
>
> Semantic web for dummies
>
>
>
> The concept of providing a surrogate for the title page is a useful
>
> one, IMO, but the "sorta/kinda/almost" way that it is done in
>
> cataloging makes it less useful.
>
>
>
> (Note: since some of you may mis-interpret my meaning, I am NOT saying
>
> that the access title must follow the case, etc., of the actual title
>
> page title. I AM saying that we should not have single elements that
>
> attempt to represent different and conflicting information. If you
>
> have two kinds of information, you should have separate elements for
>
> them.)
>
>
>
> kc
>
>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Peter
>
>> --
>
>> Peter Murray [log in to unmask] tel:+1-678-235-2955
>
>> Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/
>
>> LYRASIS -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
>
>> The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/
>
>> Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Karen Coyle
>
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>
> m: 1-510-435-8234
>
> skype: kcoylenet
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|