> No it doesn't, and no it isn't. Shorthand numbers work for something,
> but certainly not for all things. Numbers carry no semantic meaning,
> so every time a number you don't remember comes up you have to look it
> up in the documentation. How is learning '245' any different from
> learning 'title'? I
It's quite different. The information in the MARC21 245 $a is governed by the conventions of ISBD and AACR2, which comprise hundreds of pages. Anyone who hasn't had to deal with these types of supposedly simple questions firsthand (What is the title?) would be absolutely astounded at the complexity of it. I know that when I began, I was left speechless. The complexity is not there to ensure that catalogers have a future by making something complex that is fundamentally simple--it is that the task really is that complicated. The danger is: with textual identifiers, people bring to it their own, personal opinion of "title," when the information in that field should mean something extremely specific. Therefore, in my own opinion, the danger is not that people would have to look it up in the documentation; the danger is they would NOT look it up, because if they didn't look it up, the metadata would be degraded.
If we are to truly exchange information, we must be as specific as possible.
Now with that said, I think it is a losing battle and that text identifiers will be used. From the computer point of view, it makes no difference at all and for the "content experts," we must focus our attention on training and shared (or at least interoperable) standards.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Tue Aug 28 2007 - 04:05:49 EDT