Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>:
For example,
> I have brought up a few times the need to code separately the 245 $a
> from $b. I understand it had a purpose before (as I wrote to Alex
> once), primarily to prevent different texts from inter-filing, e.g.
> my example "War and peace : the definitive edition" and "War and
> peace in the nuclear age". In the card catalog, it files correctly,
> but I haven't seen any OPAC do it "right" and it has always been
> interfiled and therefore, "wrong".
Actually, when doing large scale, automated record matching, the $a $b
difference has been useful. Not everyone agrees on what is and isn't a
subtitle, but more agree on what is the title (although of course it
can go either way). In matching, we weighted matches on 245 $a high,
and a lack of 245 $b on one of them was given a lesser penalty. This
is different from just allowing a match on partial strings, many could
match partially (left-anchored) and yet be different works.
>
> If this is accepted, then it is open season on all of the other
> subfields and fixed fields. Do we really need a separately coded
> 100$b? or 100$q? Why? Just because it's considered "correct" is not
> a reason to continue it.
I would hate to see this all run together:
Tolkien, J. R. R. John Ronald Reuel
Unless you are advocating for keeping the punctuation -- but then we
get back to the question of why we are doing both and not just one. I
personally would rather use subfielding than punctuation. As mentioned
here, punctuation is display, and is less specific than subfielding. A
"(" is not as meaningful as 245 $q, because it can mean so many things
in different contexts.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Fri Jun 04 2010 - 11:05:37 EDT