Argh, my copy and paste somehow invisibly put a URL down in that post,
which confused my point horribly! Please, pretend that URL isn't there.
I meant to say:
Ie, the work identifier is "Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On the origin of
species".
Jonathan
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> The distinctions still make sense, but we need to use a different way to
> talk about them to make sense of them. I have been trying to get my
> thoughts straight on this for a while to write something up, but here's
> some things out of my brain at the moment:
>
> Given: A creator (person/corporate body) heading is an identifier for
> that creator when it is a 100 in a MARC authority
>
> When we use that heading in a bib 100, we are saying that the identifier
> for that work (or manifestation or expression; the distinction is not
> clear in our current practice) incorporates this Creator identifier. Ie,
> the Work Identifier is: "Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On the origin of
> species
> <https://catalog.library.jhu.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=Y18425P6178G0.12876&profile=general&uri=link=3100038%7E%21249833%7E%213100001%7E%213100002&aspect=alpha&menu=search&ri=16&source=%7E%21horizon&term=Darwin%2C+Charles%2C+1809-1882.+On+the+origin+of+species&index=PAUTHOR>."
>
> By putting "Darwin, Charles 1809-1882" in the 100 in a bib for "Origin
> of Species", we are establishing the manifestation identifier for this
> bib, and/or establishing/linking to the work identifier.
>
> This Work (and/or Bib and/or Expression) identifier is important,
> because in current practice, it is the only identifier we have for
> establishing relationships from _other_ entities (ie, records) to this
> one. [The fact that we sometimes have confusion over whether this is a
> work or expression or manifestation identifier is a problem, because it
> means we can't be clear about which of these entities we are
> establishing a relationship to!]
>
> On the other hand, when we include a person heading (that is, the
> identifier for a person) in a 700 of a bib, we are establishing a
> relationship from the entity represented in the bib (manifestation?
> expression? In some cases work!!?) to that person identified. We are in
> fact doing this with a 100 too--a 100 serves too purposes. But a 700
> serves only one, it establishes a relationship but does NOT define the
> identifier for the entity cataloged in the bib.
>
> So the distinction is still important, I believe. But talking about
> "main entry" and "added entry" helps nobody actually understand the
> important distinction! It leads to confusion not only among students,
> but among those teaching cataloging and those doing professional
> cataloging as well.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 10:23:17 EDT