Alexander Johannesen wrote:
<snip>
I love your rebuke; it's one of those instances where the layman gets
corrected by the expert in something the layman neither needs nor
cares about and writes extensively on why it is wrong to assume we
need that degree of specificry. I think there is a word for that. :)
</snip>
Well, I have certainly been rebuked on this list several times for my lack of programming expertise and I've taken the rebukes to heart and try to learn from them, so I think my reaction was both fair and correct. :-) But on the other hand, when the layman neither "needs nor cares" about it, is that really the correct attitude? After all, a layman, by definition, doesn't know very much about it. I guess it depends on who the layman is. If the layman is just an interested spectator, that may be one thing, but if the layman is helping to build a house or something important, I think they should need and care to know about it.
<snip>
However, it's a bit disturbing to be told that that's not entirely
true given I took the terms and definitions from the horse's mouth
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd245.html), where MARC21 would
be a given, which states "title statement" for 245 and "title" for
subfield "a". So if you can't even trust loc.gov official MARC
documentation without being corrected by a cataloger / librarian, how
on EARTH do you guys think the rest of the world, me and my laypeople,
will even bother trying to keep up with this madness?
</snip>
You just looked at the short summary. If you look down to the real definition in the MARC format guidelines (which are *not* the same as the cataloging rules), you will see:
"$a - Title
Title proper and alternative title, excluding the designation of the number or name of a part. Subfield $a also contains the first title of separate works (by the same or different authors/composers) in a collection lacking a collective title."
followed by lots of examples. This is probably almost incomprehensible to the casual observer. But again, these are *not* the cataloging rules.
<snip>
I'd say you've got bigger problems than that. What gives; MARC rules and definitions, AACR2 rules and definitions, ISBD rules and definitions. Any more? I know lots of countries have their own additions, subtractions and completely new ones as well, some minted on MARC or any other rule set they thought were up to snuff. Surely this in itself must be seen as a problem? (Not the rules themselves, but the way they're spread out, not validated, not merged, not easily accessible, not easily understood)
</snip>
And
<snip>
Surely when someone points out the insanity and complexity with the culture of MARC the right thing to do is not to point out more madness and complexity?
</snip>
There are many more rules than that. When I worked at FAO of the UN, they have their own AGRIS rules, there are EAD rules, zillions and zillions of rules, and then other places that follow very few or no rules at all. Look at the vast majority of sites on Google with no rules whatsoever.
But it isn't the rules that make a simple matter complex, the rules are complex (to the layman, insanely so) because they attempt to do is complex: to describe and impose an order on all types of materials from all times and all places. These rules are to make a tool (a catalog) to be used by other experts, i.e. a library catalog is an expert system and librarians have never really worked to make it more friendly to the layman. Lots of training is needed before someone can use a catalog competently. (I have posted quite a bit about this and a change in librarian attitudes needs to take place, which I think is happening now)
I can say that things are not getting simpler with the web. Certainly there may be promising developments in AI but so far, I haven't seen anything workable and I don't have that kind of faith. To use tools such as Google for serious purposes is a nightmare.
<snip>
> So, perhaps this reason is no longer justified, but there are still
> plenty of other important reasons for retaining the title proper so
> it should certainly be retained.
Because you say so? :)
</snip>
No, because other cataloger-experts around the world think so by working with ISBD.
To discuss the other points in your message:
I agree 100% that we must work with full-text access and discover new methods for creating and accessing resources. RDA and FRBR do not do this in any way at all and are completely silent in this regard. So far as I know, RDA mentions ONIX crosswalks, which is a tiny fraction of what needs to be done, while a discussion of full-text access is ignored.
This should cause no surprise since FRBR (the foundation of RDA) was written in the pre-Google days. It is one of the main reasons why I have been speaking out against implementing RDA. Nobody seems to be asking the obvious question: can a catalog record interoperate with full-text materials to improve access and improve the general understanding of the item(s) available? And if so, how? I don't know; I suspect it can. But if it is shown that a catalog record can improve matters, then we should continue creating them, while if it is shown that it doesn't improve matters, then there will be no value in continuing cataloging since it would add no value. That would be too bad, but we need to face facts, and besides I don't think that would be the result. It seems as if researches in these areas would be very interesting.
But still, description of a resource for reliable access is not and probably will not become an easy thing and I certainly have not seen it done automatically in any kind of satisfactory way yet.
Concerning:
<snip>
> This is beyond the abilities of any one person or even one community of
> specialists. There is nothing wrong with this; it is just the way the world works.
Agree 30%.
Of course a community of specialists can get together and form a
marvelous foundation upon which the future can carry on. It's happened
many times, and it will happen again. Heck, even an individual can
sometimes break down walls and change the future for the better.
</snip>
And that is one reason why I initiated the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, to try to create a new "community." Still don't know if that one will fly.
Ciao,
Jim
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Wed Apr 21 2010 - 05:32:20 EDT