Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Frank A. Roos writes:
> >
> > I am not a cataloguer, but IIRC, the notions of "primary responsibility" and
> > "secondary responsibility" in the old days were needed to determine the
> > heading/filing word of the main entry and to distinguish between main entry
> > and other entries in a ............ card catalog.
> >
> Main entry (card catalog or not) has been the subject of endless debates
> in cataloging circles. For purposes of retrieval, we are all agreed that
> all distinctions between forms of responsibility are of no use. (The last
> big debate was last year in the context of the Toronto conference.)
>
> "Main entry" is no longer the right term, though. What we have to think about
> is the layout of presentations and brief citations in OPACs and listings.
> There, it helps to have singled out one Creator at the stage of input, for
> the "Author: Title" format of citations is very deeply rooted in the
OK, yes, I see, for ranking and sorting. But if we refer to resource discovery on
the Web, the ranking in your AltaVista or HotBot or whatever search engine seems
rather different ("relevance" ranking for instance) than OPACs do sorting. I know
examples of OPACs however (not large volumed databases I must admit) where
collapsing primary author(s) and contributors in one index seem to work
satisfactorily.
An question would be whether DC should accomodate sorting and ranking. That was
not my initial thought.
<snipped> >8
--
Frank A. Roos
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|