Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Roy Tennant questioned the utlility of:
>> - title page title
>> - cover title
>> - title from jewel case insert
> The absence of such information can result in duplicate records for
> the same resource, or the assumption that the same resource was issued
> under different titles.

We know that different libraries have different capabilities, so we  
can probably agree that some library metadata won't make these  
distinctions. One of the advantages of the data management technology  
of the Semantic Web is that your system can have a hierarchy of  

title (broadest)
   - narrower: title page title
   - narrower: cover title

Some libraries can use the specific terms, some can use the broader  
term, and yet those different selections can be used together because  
the terms are linked. With this technology a search on "title" can  
retrieve the narrower terms as well - or not, as you wish.

Obviously if some libraries use less precise information matching and  
de-duplicating can also be less precise. However, the totality of the  
information that you have, meaning some information from different  
sources, can be used to make sense of things. So if MOST libraries  
have stated that the title page title is "Title X" then you can assume  
that an undifferentiated title "Title X" is a title page title. It's  
not a 100% kind of match any more, but a more nuanced match (that  
Simon probably has the correct terms for!). The Open Library used a  
version of this in their determination of Works by using the  
information from records that did have uniform titles to bring in  
records for the same manifestation but that had not included the  
uniform title.


> I approve of the new MARC field 588 for source, since the information
> is of more utility for the cataloguer than the end user, and need not
> be an early note.  I think 588 should be used for all source of title
> notes, not just those from outside the resource.
> The division of similar information is a flaw in MARC, e.g.: 506 and
> 540 should be adjacent or two subfields of the same field; noncast
> credits for video recordings of motion pictures should be together in
> 508, not divided, with some in 245/$c; physical information should not
> be as widely divided as 300 and 538; and now source of title should
> not be divided between 500 and 588.
> I hope any new coding system will have like with like, a basic
> principle of classification which should be extended to coding.
> Please don't tell me display need not reflect coding.  Why create the
> additional work for ourselves of changing element order?
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet