Ron Daniel Jr. wrote:
>
> Another take on "contributor" can be found in Rebecca's paper on
> qualifiers, available at:
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/dcqualif.html
>
> She says not to specify the role of the contribution for the pragmatic
> reason that it is never used. According to her:
> At the Library of Congress, we have found that names are all
> searched in the same index and there is no need to further
> specify role in the work. We ceased to indicate this in
> bibliographic records a long time ago.
>
> Although this makes the secret structuralist inside me howl with dismay,
> its a decision based on practical experience.
I consider this as one of the important approaches to the DC. IMHO it is
not very operationalistic to look at DC things from a hypothetical, but
theoretically correct angle.
We should always ask ourselves, whether the user and the search engines
need a certain refinement. The answers to these questions are mainly
based on practical experience.
Since our goal is to
> keep the core simple, we would seem to have very little need to exceed
> cataloging practice at LC. So, I guess we just say
> <contributor>John Smith</contributor>
>
--
Frank A. Roos ([log in to unmask])
|