Alex Satrapa wrote:
>
> I'm not saying to throw out all the rules "just because". I'd *like* to be able to
> cut down the AACR to 15 pages. I'm saying we should throw out or simplify the rules
> that add too much complexity.
You won't get much argument from any catalogers if you wish to simplify
the rules, but this desire must come from an understanding that the
rules serve a purpose: to bring consistency to an immensely complex
collection of millions of items. Simplicity--for the sake of
simplicity--only adds to complexity for users when they wish to search
and understand the record.
Each rule is there for a purpose. It was created when a cataloger asked,
"What do I do with this?" To determine the answer, it took discussion
with colleagues, research, etc. In the end, they decided to write down
the answer for easy reference instead of expecting every cataloger to
redo the research, discussion with colleagues, etc. every time they came
across the same situation (and perhaps come up with different answers).
Rules are designed to save a cataloger's time.
But, if you don't believe in the importance of consistency in records,
then rules are a waste of time. But of course, that's the situation we
find today in Yahoo and Alta Vista.
> Why, for example, does the book James used in his example have the uniform title
> "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" rather than "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"?
A more interesting question is: why is the uniform title there at all?
It is designed to bring all versions of a title together: in this case,
it's there because the title of the book is "The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn (Tom Sawyer's comrade)". This is an interesting case in
point.
When I cataloged this book, I personally felt that (Tom Sawyer's
comrade) was a subtitle based on placement on the page, and other
concerns, and should be entered as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn :
(Tom Sawyer's comrade)". But for the sake of consistency (i.e. relating
the book to the rest of the collection) I discovered that all previous
catalogers had consistently made (Tom Sawyer's comrade) as part of the
main title.
Although I disagreed with this treatment, I had to follow it, since I am
cataloging the book. My only alternative would have been to change all
the other (Tom Sawyer's comrade) into subtitles to match my own, but
what a waste of time!
This is how cataloging works. What appears to be simple can actually
hides a great deal of complexity--and all of it is to make a more
understandable record.
The uniform title came up when I searched the Name Authority File. It
states that all versions of this intellectual work must have the title:
"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" somewhere in the record.
> Does it *really* matter if one person says "Huckleberry Finn" has 480 pages, and
> another says it has 398?
If it doesn't have the same number of pages, would you say that it is
the same text? To decide that somebody doesn't care whether it is or not
may be satisfactory for a public library, but certainly not for
Princeton's faculty members.
I think Bernhard answered the rest of the points.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|