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  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: Input screens

From:

Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:55:29 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (34 lines)

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]
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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