LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  November 2011

BIBFRAME November 2011

Subject:

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

From:

"Akerman, Laura" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:59:50 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (53 lines)

I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...

To me, the original "main entry" concept could more usefully be thought about in a larger context of  "for any field that is repeatable in a set of bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such fields as "primary" for purposes of selection for display, categorization (where a particular application requires one to "select one box" to characterize a resource) or other functionalities?  If so, should the designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?

Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of "format" (which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a resource has characteristics of two "formats"?).

For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was based) had the first position in the record.   Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is easily lost.  Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable?

What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with multiple authors and designate that person as the "main" one, based on the almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person "Creator" and relegating the other author(s) to "Contributor" status.  (Nor do I think that dichotomy is particularly useful.)

Laura

Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Jim said:

>Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
><creator> and <contributor> where <creator> is repeatable, thereby
>creating multiple main entries.

How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would scholars cite in footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?

Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

________________________________

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager