Jonathan,
Great points - this is very clear thinking, I think (maybe someone with
more knowledge would disagree, but this seems doubtful to me)
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:52 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FoBC - details vs access?
I actually disagree with this. I think we should concentrate on our
traditional 'headings' as identifiers used for establishing
relationships, rather than as human-displayable citations. I think the
current practice of trying to make them do double duty as both leads to
serious problems, where one goal conflicts with the other. [One simple
and obvious example: Of course, nobody ever cites a work in actual
narrative using the author's birth or death dates, do they?]
Human readable citations can be composed from individual data elements
in our records. We may want to be careful about which data elements we
record in which structured ways, to make sure the information is (or
continues to be) there for this purpose. Different catalogs can compose
these citations in different ways for different users. If it really is
necessary for the cataloger to pre-compose a human-readable citation, I
think that needs to be a seperate data element (although I doubt that
cost is worth it). The current practice of using 'headings' for both
purposes has caused confusion, and led to some serious problems with
using headings as unambiguous machine actionable identifiers, which from
my perspective is the very purpose of authority control from my
perspective. If you are sacrificing that purpose to another with your
authority control,you are defeating the very purpose of your authority
control in the first place, from my perspective.
Jonathan
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> Good thoughts on main entry. In addition, there was a discussion on
> AUTOCAT a few weeks back where someone pointed out that the usual way
of
> entering motion pictures is under title, and music and sound
recordings
> is under composer and that this shows that there are *traditional
> methods of citation* used in academia *and popular* culture.
>
> So, this is another reason why the 'main entry heading' might still be
> useful: for bibliographic citation purposes.
>
> Nathan Rinne
> Media Cataloging Technician
> ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
> 11200 93rd Ave. North
> Maple Grove, MN. 55369
> Work phone: 763-391-7183
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FoBC - details vs access?
>
> 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=Y18425P6178G0.1
>
2876&profile=general&uri=link=3100038%7E%21249833%7E%213100001%7E%213100
>
002&aspect=alpha&menu=search&ri=16&source=%7E%21horizon&term=Darwin%2C+C
> harles%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 - 12:11:16 EDT