Just a little more about The shaft (2001).
I'm impressed that some of you found that in OCLC. I knew from watching
the film and reading about it on IMDb that it was really made in 2001.
But it was never released to theaters, because it makes some flippant
remarks about terrorism and happened to be finished right about the time
of 9/11. So apparently, it wasn't released until 2003 on DVD, and you
have to find it in OCLC with that date, which I did not know. If you
search for it with 2001, you don't find it. Or at least I couldn't.
Thomas, where did you get the information that "Down" was the original
title? Maybe that's buried somewhere on IMDb, but it's not something an
average moviegoer would know, I think. IMDb says it's a remake of a 1983
Dutch film, De lift.
I am considering some of Thomas's and others' more theoretical points,
too.
--Thanks, Ted G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MULLEN Allen
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:12 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Next Gen Catalog and FRBR
Thanks for sharing what you think about IMDb and FRBR, Ted. Here is
some feedback on your example:
OCLC #51857325 for Shaft
245: Title is simply The shaft
Added title (246 field): Down
This film is distinguished, for all but the least knowledgeable
searcher, by director and technical staff, actors and actresses, year of
release, etc., all of which are accessible via keyword from IMDb or the
MARC record. If a user lacking any of that knowledge searches IMDb, the
title list is pretty informative:
Down (2001)
aka "The Shaft" - USA (video title)
There is no uniform title field in the MARC cataloging record (though it
is, on the whole, a pretty good catalog record), so while a good FRBR
implementation *could* relate all of the VHS, DVD and soundtrack
manifestations, this is lacking in the cataloging universe at present.
In addition, IMdB provides a far richer bed of information on *many*
aspects of the film than a conventional cataloging record, both for
discovery via keyword search retrieval as well as exploring various
dimensions of the production, composition, and appraisal of the film.
I dunno, Ted - I'd say IMDb is a pretty good search tool as well as a
rich resource for casual film viewers and researchers. If it linked to
local library holdings and was placed side by side with an OPACs, it
could give us a run for our money. 8-)
Allen Mullen
Eugene Public Library
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:26 AM
>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
>
>
Received on Mon May 14 2007 - 18:12:38 EDT