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:

Hal Cain <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:33:14 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:42:22 -0800, Tennant,Roy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Yes, a field must be used before anyone will pay any attention to it.
>
>A cautionary tale: Nine years ago, almost to the day, MARBI voted 7-0 to
>pass the proposal for a new field[1]: 258 Philatelic Issue Data.  Now in
>2013 I find exactly 8 records that have a 258 in the nearly 300 million
>record WorldCat aggregation. Eight.
>
>Now how was MARBI to know that nine years later no one would care about the
>258? They couldnąt, really, they just had to judge the proposal in front of
>them. But if we are going to chart a way forward it must be with full
>knowledge of where we may have gone astray in the past.

With reference to the cautionary tale, I wonder how many records have been 
created, in those nine years, in which 258 would have been appropriate? (In 
45 years involvement in cataloguing and with cataloguers, I have never 
created such a record).

On the other hand, current experience of mine, reviewing possible WorldCat 
records against book in hand, shows that the level of duplication among 
records for pre-AACR2 materials (and sometimes for later ones) is high, let 
alone the results of wholesale loading of non-AACR2 foreign records from 
around the globe, many of which have to stand because of the language-of-
cataloguing rule.  Perhaps the base number calls for discounting?  If a 
good, unique record requires an uncommon field in order to create a record 
which fully reflects a resource's attributes, perhaps the true conclusion 
may be that WorldCat was judged not to be the correct repository for that 
metadata to reveal the resource to its likely seekers?  

MARC systems have, after all, been used time and again for 
nonbibliographical materials -- even institutional furniture and equipment 
records -- because a library has a local database with good control and 
indexing features; I have myself entered a set of patron locker keys so that 
they could be controlled through the system checkout/checkin functions (I 
admit I cheated by bypassing many fields altogether).  We have probably 
passed that stage now, seeing as pretty well everyone has access to a 
spreadsheet program, but if a mistake had been made in selecting records for 
export, those key records might have ended up in Libraries Australia and 
thence even been copied into WorldCat.  And then turned up in some kind of 
exception table.

By all means look where we have been.  Uncommon data categories might not be 
inappropriate.  Uncommonness is a reason to prompt reflection and inquiry, 
not necessarily to exclude.  I wonder about some of the provisions and 
distinctions in RDA.

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

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