Hi,
I did think that what IMDb lacks is the rigour of authority control, but
I think the example of The Shaft is actually quite useful in
highlighting the various strengths and weaknesses of IMDb and
AACR2-based catalogues.
Uniform titles are an option in AACR2, and their use is really primarily
based on their utility in the local catalogue. The original name of the
movie was "Down" so in some catalogues this would be the uniform title
and main entry heading of the record. "Down (Motion picture)" is a form
that is used if there is another title "Down" in the catalogue-- this is
a form of disambiguation in AACR2 and LC Rule Interpretations. It's
important to realize that this rule for qualifying titles is derived
from the idea that one is building a >local< catalogue-- I think this
speaks to a problem that still needs to be addressed. Cost efficiencies
means we can share catalogue data, but every library has had the
assumption, or really I think the mission to build its own catalogue
following common rules but not necessarily common data sets. I found one
library had added "Down" in a 246 field and made a note indicating that
"Down" was the original title. Another library might do it differently,
recognizing there is broader work title "Down" and a specific
manifestation title "The Shaft".
But I think there is a true utility to FRBR. The problem is not that
FRBR isn't good enough, but that systems haven't fully exploited the
data normalization and clear distinctions that FRBR has provided.
IMDb has "The Shaft" listed after "Down" in the "Titles--partial
matches" section. What's missing is an ability to sort and further
FRBRize these titles.
Something like:
The Shaft (manifestation title for USA video; work title "Down"; other
titles this work is known by ....)
instead of (or alongside in a fully fleshed out alphabetical list)
Down (2001)
aka "The Shaft" - USA (video title)
So I think further improvement can be made, but even so, I think the
value of FRBR already has been established. The effort in FRBR is really
to explain in a more rigorous fashion, derived from data-modelling
techniques, the entities and relationships and attributes that are of
chief concern in bibliographic control. There shouldn't be any entities,
relationships, or attributes of concern remaining after a proper
FRBRizing effort.
Thomas Brenndorfer, B.A, M.L.I.S.
Guelph Public Library
100 Norfolk St.
Guelph, ON
N1H 4J6
(519) 824-6220 ext. 276
tbrenndorfer_at_library.guelph.on.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
> Sent: May 14, 2007 2:26 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
>
> Thomas, I think FRBR is somewhat overrated. It may be good someday,
but
> I think it needs quite a bit of work. Particularly Group Three has
some
> conceptual problems, and I understand there are also problems fitting
> serials into the FRBR framework. I'm not convinced that at present
it's
> really much of an advance over what we do now. We can show
relationships
> between different manifestations of a work via uniform titles.
>
> I love IMDb and use it all the time. But as a catalog, it's not
perfect
> by a long shot. For example, if you look for the 2001 film The shaft
(a
> horror movie about elevators), it's very difficult to find. There is
of
> course the 1971 crime film Shaft and a remake of it in 2000. They have
> distinguished those two versions by putting dates after Shaft in
> parentheses, but evidently, they couldn't figure out what to do with
the
> 2001 film, other than give it its "alternative title," Down. I don't
> remember ever seeing Down anywhere on the DVD case for that film. So
as
> sophisticated and helpful a tool as IMDb is, its controlled vocabulary
> is rather rudimentary.
>
> I'll admit I'm not a media cataloger, so I'm not sure what a librarian
> would do with the 2001 Shaft, either. But I assume there is AACR2 rule
> or Rule Interpretation that would distinguish it from those others
> without having to resort to such a mysterious title.
> --Ted Gemberling
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:00 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
>
> The general needs for a next generation catalogue were articulated in
> the original FRBR report at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf
.
>
Received on Mon May 14 2007 - 14:59:31 EDT