>If you wonder what I'm getting at, try to find a
> representation of Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" in any library or catalog.
This is what I pulled from Princeton's online catalog.
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. KOFE
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. SELECTIONS. 1976
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. SUITE.
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. SUITE. ARR.
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. SUITE. ARR. 1983
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. SUITE. ARR. 1988
TCHAIKOVSKY PETER ILICH 1840-1893. SHCHELKUNCHIK. VALS TSVETOV
This is how uniform titles work, and I think they work very well.
Creating these sorts of titles takes a lot of training, though.
It gives access to the work (the Nutcracker [in Russian] with references
from different languages) and then to the different parts, arranged in
various ways. For an even more impressive arrangement, look at the
titles for the Bible. [Bible. O.T. or Bible N.T. with all the different
works and manifestations].
> End-users seldom look for a "Creator"
Are you saying that people don't look for the things that Goethe wrote?
That has certainly not been my own experience. I believe that author
searches are probably the most utilized searches of all.
> they look for an artifact, mostly something one would call a "work" (in library > cataloging terms).
The idea of work vs. manifestation can be viewed in many different ways.
I could argue (and many have) that what it is users want is precisely
manifestations and can't really even understand the concept of "work".
In either case, the catalog handles it all now.
In the case of 1:1, that can mean very different things to different
people.
For example, how do various people view an article in a magazine
concerning medieval art with 10 pictures?
a library cataloger may view the magazine (which contains hundreds of
volumes, and thousands of articles) as 1 item.
An indexer may believe that the article with ten pictures is 1 item.
A slide cataloger may believe that each picture is one item.
A specialist indexer (e.g. the Index of Christian art) may believe that
each picture is made up of dozens of separate parts (swords, draperies,
trees, etc.)
Who is right? All are, but in the case of the specialist indexer, even
they would agree that such a rigorous system as theirs is completely
unusable (and unnecessary) in the larger world.
>3) Every particular document or resource can be a representation of just
> one work, but it can consist of any number of parts. It is not the parts
> the end-user will want to discover, it will be the whole.
> Conclusion: Metadata should be created with a work-oriented rather than
> a manifestation-centered view.
Users have varying needs. Some need the parts, and others need the
whole. I believe the conclusion should be: Metadata should be created in
a pragmatic fashion, based on the resources available and past
practices.
James Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|