Suzanne:
I think part of the problem is that the distinctions between a 100
and a 700 made sense when what we were doing was creating catalog
cards, but those distinctions are probably no longer the ones we want
or need to make. We want to know which are authors, which are
illustrators, which are editors, etc. We may want to distinguish the
first author from the other 5 (or 50) for citation purposes but
different tags may not be necessary to do that. If we want computers
to make the distinctions that we and our users want, we have to give
them the data upon which to act. Encoding relator information is
probably a good start, but determining a finer level of
responsibility may be more difficult (and may indeed be more than our
users want and more than we can afford to provide).
There's a lot to sort out, no doubt about it.
Diane
>And the comment on one of these threads mentions keeping the user in mind
>not the rules.
>
>More and more my user is another computer. Making my work needing more
>granularity for a computer to know what the data means.
>
>Is the main entry used for display mainly or is there something else that
>the main entry provides? Does it help identify a work? If the computer find
>the name string in the 100 vs in the 700 is there something the program
>"knows" about that name string? I guess I can tell a computer would
>appreciate the name string being in a 600 vs a 100 or 700. But with out, say
>the relator code with the name in the 700, is the computer have some
>knowledge that that name is "less" responsible? And would that even be
>correct!? No. 100 and 700 can both be essentially responsible.
>
>
>On 7/11/07, Sharon Foster <fostersm1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>And unfortunately cataloging is still being taught like this. My
>>instructor, who I consider one of the better ones at my school, kept
>>referring to "main entry" and "added entry," and how long it takes to
>>search 10,000 records. But, said I, we're not really searching each
>>record, are we? We're really looking up in an index of all the
>>records. And what is the significance of a "main entry," when any
>>field may be defined as an access point in the database? It seems to
>>me that we are retaining an awful lot of concepts and terminology that
>>meant something in the card catalog days, but are somewhat less than
>>useful now.
>>
>>On 7/11/07, Suzanne Pilsk <suzanne.pilsk_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm always flummoxed when it comes to the decision : is the information
>>I'm
>>> putting in just detail vs is it actually providing access.
>>>
>>> It comes out when something "interesting" is wanting to be done with the
>>> data and it turns out that details were skipped because they weren't
>>seen as
>>> important access points.
>>>
>>> Anyone who tries to repurpose metadata sees the inconsistencies and can
>>get
>>> very frustrated when trying to pull out or pull together data
>>differently
>>> than, say, the established index of an ILS.
>>>
>>> Case: Whining recently about old old MARC records that had very sketch
>>> titles and often didn't include authors in 100 fields because the rules
>>> didn't make you do it. It was good enough then. Now it isn't
>>>
>>> Case: Georgraphic grouping of data but it turns out the fixed field for
>>ctry
>>> was skipped because the ILS at the time didn't do anything with it
>>anyway.
>>> Wasn't an access point - why look up those pesky three letters?
>>>
>>> Case: Grouping publishers together with dates to approach for copy right
>>> permissions; whoops, abbreviated publishers get us nowhere. The
>>Association
>>> in 260 $b ugh! Well, it isn't an "access point" why bother.
>>>
>>> Case: Grouping personal names together - without relator codes - is the
>>> person in the 700 an author of the work or some other "role"? A detail
>>that
>>> was not used because access was for the name not the role
>>>
>>> Anyway, you all get my point. The problem I have is when is a detail
>>> actually turn into an access point and when is "good enough" now turn
>>out to
>>> be useless down the road?
>>>
>>> I think what I took away from the meeting at LC was that I need to give
>>up
>>> on the touch the record once and walk away. Instead, the record might
>>be
>>> touched and retouched over and over as more data becomes available. But
>>> that sounds very expensive.
>>>
>>> Yet still, I go back to my cubical and I do.... what? Go fast and hope
>>that
>>> what I've decided was good enough is actually okay and that later I
>>won't be
>>> cursing myself because I can't provide subset of my data by something
>>that
>>> seems so obvious to that future me?
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Sharon M. Foster
>>[affiliations omitted]
>>
>>Any opinions expressed here are entirely my own.
Received on Wed Jul 11 2007 - 21:08:37 EDT