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:

Monospaced 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:

Hal Cain <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:34:01 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:59:50 +0000, Akerman, Laura <[log in to unmask]> wrote
(in part):

>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?

There are, to my mind, certain structures which are properly inherent in the
bibliographical data, *because* they're inherent in the documents (and
document-related entities) we're describing. The fact is that we name the
creator of a text along with its title as, or as part of, a *citation*
(which may be regarded as a form of the name of the document [FRBR
"manifestation"] or of the text [FRBR "work"]. We do this because we have to
use that name in order to make consistent and coherent reference to it when
it occurs elsewehere; as Mac Elrod pointed out, when a document or a work
has to be cited as the subject of another document, or as a related work.

More than that, however, users work with citations, and the widely-used
style guides provide rules and patterns for creating them. If the records we
formulate don't correspond with those patterns, we place a barrier between
users and our data. Since the first principle of the catalogue is to serve
the convenience of the reader rather than the creator of the catalogue, we
have no right to build or perpetuate such a barrier. Therefore the data as
recorded should include the creator relationship. Whether it's recorded by
making the creator a special element, or by attaching the relationship as a
connection between the creator element and the title element, is secondary.
It occurs to me to point out that in MARC 21, the relationship is recorded
by using a special MARC tag (100/110/111) but in Unimarc it's recorded by an
attachment (a special indicator value) to the tag used for any
responsible/related name. In other data formats there are other mechanisms.
Some of them may even be able to accomodate shared multiple, responsibility
(e.g. W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan both responsible for _H.M.S.
Pinafore_ but conventionally cited as Gilbert first, then Sullivan (contra
AACR2 practice).

>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?

Well, I still lament it! Seriously, I think it worth having the principal
subject(s) specifically indicated, ancillary subjects being able to be
omitted from brief display of data but available for more comprehensive
display.
>
>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.)

As you may gather from the above, I disagree. The reason for my
disagreement is twofold: it needs to be plain that the record (or other set
of data if "record" is inappropriate) corresponds with the document in hand;
and it needs to correspond as well as possible with the citations users
bring to the catalogue -- the fact that citations may be imperfect does not
mean the data content doesn't matter. The implication is that joint
responsibility needs to be acknowledged (as, I believe, does editorial
compilation of existing material, like volumes of readings -- the citations
are written that way, why not cataloguing also?) otherwise we place a
barrier of ambiguity between user and data. And one of the functions of
catalogue records is to be used to create citations -- Endnote, anyone?

So long as different elements are distinguished (names, relationships,
titles, other significant data elements) the format in which it's recorded
is very secondary.

Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
[log in to unmask]

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

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