The thread below has been in the back of my mind for a while and today my concerns with it crystallized. If we truly want to move ahead in a new way, I think it is absolutely necessary to question our assumptions. An assumption I see below is that provenance matters. It’s quite possible that it does, but allow me to question it. In all of my 37 years working in libraries I’ve never encountered a situation where it was necessary to know where the title came from to do useful work with bibliographic data. In what situations is this necessary, and why?

Also in this message, Karen sets out a potential principle as:

"say what it is, not where you want it to display"

I fully agree with this, and suggest another principle:

“carry forward only what can be justified by real requirements from real users”

Otherwise, I fear we are in danger of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

>Quoting Karen Coyle
>>Quoting Kelley McGrath
> >Three optional machine-comprehensible provenance elements attached  
> >to every data element:
> >1) source of the data
> >2) the institution entering the data
> >3) date the data was input
> >Perhaps something like the following for title proper:
> >TitleProper: Citizen Kane
> >DataSource: title frame
> >DataInst: OrU
> >DataDate: 2012-01-04
>One possible answer is that we eliminate generalities like "title  
>proper" that don't actually tell us much about title itself. "Title  
>proper" is like "main entry" -- it tells you the role the title is  
>playing in the record, not what the title actually is. We could have:
>- title page title
>- cover title
>- title from jewel case insert