Print

Print


If I may, I'd like to politely disagree with my esteemed colleague and
argue that "[sound recording]" and "[electronic resource]" are most
assuredly not part of the title, and do not belong there in MODS.
Frankly, I don't think such notations even belong there in the
MARC/AACR2 environment, but that is a debate best argued elsewhere.
Roy Tennant

On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 08:57 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> At 08:30 AM 4/29/2003 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>> Why the following?
>>
>> <name type="conference">
>> <namePart>International Workshop on Plasma-Based Ion Implantation
>> (1993: University of Wisconsin--Madison)</namePart>
>> </name>
>>
>> I see this a lot with these example records, and I assume they're a
>> holdover from MARC practices, but isn't the above title mixing in
>> non-title data (date and place) that should go elsewhere?  And
>> shouldn't the MODS user guide reflect best practices, rather than
>> repeat these errors?
>
> Actually, the date and place are often considered part of the name of
> the
> conference. Not always, but often. The date of publication of the
> proceedings still goes into the date field -- that could be different
> from
> the date of the conference itself. And the place of publication still
> goes
> into the place of publication field. So when ACM publishes conference
> proceedings, the publisher is ACM, the place of publication is New
> York,
> yet the conference may have taken place in Peoria a year earlier. The
> title
> on the conference proceedings will read something like: 5th conference
> on
> wombats, January, 2003, Peoria.
>
>
>> Three other examples:
>>
>> <titleInfo>
>> <title>Oklahoma [sound recording] ; Carousel ; South Pacific</title>
>> </titleInfo>
>>
>> <name type="conference">
>> <namePart>Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920)</namePart>
>> </name>
>>
>> <titleInfo>
>> <title>Portals to the world</title>
>> <partName>Selected Internet resources</partName>
>> <partName>Andorra [electronic resource]</partName>
>> </titleInfo>
>
> Odd though it seems, these are not incorrect. It really depends on what
> title is on the item you are creating metadata for. With books and even
> journal articles it's often relatively simple, but other documents
> often
> have titles that have parts and bits and pieces in them. This is why
> the
> library cataloging rules are 400+ pages long.
>
> It's also true that citations are less rigorous in defining titles than
> library catalogs, mainly because we can't expect all authors to absorb
> a
> tome of rules. So I'm not surprised that library cataloging looks odd.
>
> [A teaser: when a book is written by a spirit speaking through a
> medium,
> who should be listed as the author of the book?]
>
> kc
>
>
> *********
> Karen Coyle
> California Digital Library
> 510-987-0567
> *********
>