Mac Elrod wrote:
> Kevin said:
> >No, the question is "Why would anybody enter a criminal defendant
> under 'Au= >thor'?"
> Because that is the only labeled box which translates into 100 (or
> whatever is used for Bibframe preferred entry) in input screen samples
> we have seen so far?
I think what we've seen so far are only illustrations of the concept, not suggestions for actual production versions.
> Or are you suggesting there be a label and box for every possible type
> of main entry, including criminal defendant?
Now you're catching on. Although, I wouldn't exactly envision a separate box for every "main entry" (to use pre-RDA terminology). Rather, a box in which the name could be input, and another box next to it that would have the relationship. A likely scenario would have the possible relationships appear in a drop-down menu.
> "100" makes more sense to me, and is far more efficient.
Only for those who know the MARC format. Many other kinds of input can be just as efficient. The thing is, there should be no need to continue requiring the inputters to have knowledge of this--or any--tagging structure.
> That some OPACs still label main entry as "Author" is reprehensible.
That's an area in which I think the combination of RDA and the new bibliographic framework will be a tremendous help. By getting away from the catch-all 100 field, and by using discrete relationship designators, we'll have much richer data that I hope will inspire OPAC designers to create more logical displays.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!