I believe in simplification of cataloging
rules. I have been flamed by people who think that "simplification"
means "dumbing down" and that every last RI is necessary for
good bibliographic control. But simple is not the same is easy,
and accurate bibliographic description and good, concise subject analysis
will never be easy. Sometimes the rules take on a life of their
own, and distract attention from true aim of our work. Mental energy
spent deliberating finer points of the rules could be redirected to analyzing
the intellectual content of what we are cataloging.
I believe that the core record contains
everything needed for quality cataloging, and as a "floor" it
also allows the addition of more elements. Every full record in
OCLC could be coded as core, though not every core record could be coded
as full. So, much time is saved by coding everything core, rather
than making the distinction. Even more time is saved in training
by teaching only the core standard.
IMHO, the main difference between core
and full are fewer notes and more room for judgement in core, and these
are both good things. I would like for PCC to embrace core as its
only standard, but I don't think that is likely.
I was restraining myself from ranting
about this, but that was a direct question :-)
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708-0190 [log in to unmask]
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Amy H Turner wrote:
> it. For BIBCO, some (including me) have embraced core on philosophical
> principles and use it even when the record is indistinguishable from
> full record (often) and others have the same preference for full.
i curious to know what philosophical principles are involved in using core
level even when the record is indistinguishable from a full record.
i don't understand why this would be a matter of philosophy nor why a
full record would intentionally be coded as core.
--ralph papakhian (cook music library, indiana university)