Joe Montibello wrote:
> Not a cataloger here, but this is an interesting conversation. I just want to
> call one piece out:
> > ...help a user match that which he/she may hold with what is seen in the
> While I know that's the reason for the current practice, that's not a
> compelling reason to insist that bibframe (or any future system) must do
> also support that use case.
> > ...it would no longer match what is on the manifestation.
> Are we trading the certainty of matching this string against the (assumed)
> physical item:
> >>>>> Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1955.
> vs. a different sort of certainty that might be found in linked data like this:
> publishedAt: http://dbpedia.org/page/Chicago
> publishedBy: http://fr.dbpedia.org/page/University_of_chicago_press
> publishedIn: http://dbpedia.org/page/1955
> If we have to give up one of these, I'd vote for ditching the old practice of
> matching item in hand to get the benefits of linked data.
This is a matter that was already argued during the development of RDA. There are very valid reasons for having the rule to transcribe information from the resource. This can be very critical in the cataloging of rare and archival materials.
Transcribed data and controlled data serve different purposes, and they cannot be substitutes for each other. Neither is more important than the other. Yes we need to have linked data, but not at the cost of losing transcribed data.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!