On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> ... you could conceive of something written in Plato's time to be
> "about" that time. But the problem posed was not a user wanting
> everything "about" that time. It was a user wanting things originally
> written in that time.
What Eric Lease Morgan was inquiring about are [in his example]: "works
containing the dialogs of Plato."
What he wants, in his words is: "an additional date denoting when -- in
all likely hood -- the idea expressed by the creator of the work was
conceived/embodied" or, [part] "of a tool for analysis and understanding.
I don't care about the thing as much as I care for what the thing
contains, what it means, and why it is important."
> If you record Historical works about Plato's time but which were written in
> the 20th century a "Plato's time" 045, and you ALSO record things originally
> written in Plato's time a "Plato's time" 045....
Eric is not talking about works *about* Plato (unless they contain works
*of* Plato, but either fits the definition of OCLC's field 045: "A time
period ... associated with the item described in the bibliographic record
... [when] a chronological approach would ... be a logical or common
approach to the subject matter."
He is saying that it is logical that works *by* Plato can be approached
chronologically.
> The system still can't assemble a set of things originally
> written/conceived in Plato's time. Therefore the data is just as
> useless as it was before for solving that problem.
A system can assemble a set of writings originally written/conceived in
Plato's time if Plato's time is recorded on the bibliographical records
for those writings, no matter when the writings were published.
> This exchange is probably an example of the difficulty of catalogers and
> programmers to communicate
Probably, but I think we both understand that anything can be represented
mathematically and thus "programmed" for data recovery.
When it comes to the problem of OCLC field 045 potentially containing
different types of data, the data types could be distinguished by defined
2nd indicators. But I don't see a problem-- I see Eric's suggestion as
alluding to the potential of a field that has not been overly specifically
defined.
On the other hand, do programmers think too literally rather than
abstractly (not that catalogers would not be guilty of the same thing)? I
noticed you used the phrase "Plato's time" above. Were you using that
phrase in the sense of actual data being entered in the 045? The 045 field
uses mathematically analyzable data (some from a specific table), so that
"Plato's time" would be represented by "d5d6" or "$b c428 $b c347" [or
substitute the data representing the specific year a "Plato's time" work
1st appeared for the author's birth, death or "flourished" date(s)].
Or: you could use OCLC's field 046 = "Special coded dates" = type of date
codes if date information cannot be recorded in fixed-field elements DtSt
... and Dates." This is definitely fudging, however, since 046 is
primarily intended for data that *should* but cannot be put in the fixed
field. You would have to have a code added to those permissible in $a to
identify the "type of date."
Another alternative would be to define a new field that works like 045 or
046 but as fixed field data (006.5? :)).
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Wed Jul 27 2011 - 18:39:34 EDT