James Weinheimer wrote:
> One of the problems here is what we mean by "right" and "wrong". Simply put, in a catalog,
> what is "right" is based on precedent--what has been done in the past. [...]
> We must think of the catalog as a whole and not only of individual records.
Totally agree! But in *which* catalog? Yours at Princeton? The one at "La Sapienza"
in Rome?
I would say that you'll find different forms in different catalogues.
Each of the catalogues is probably consistent.
> This is why I have problems with the "quick and dirty" solution. Let's say that the form is
> "Biase, Fausto di" but somebody doesn't like it and thinks "I'll make it 'di Biase,
> Fausto'".
So you have "Biase, Fausto di" in your catalog? Fine!
Rome has "di Biase, Fausto". Who are you to tell the cataloguers in Rome that they
should change something if they decide to make a DC version of their catalog?
And if you make a DC version of yours, what will be the effect when using both of
them? Inconsistency...
> In this way, "quick and dirty" to me, means making everything dirty--a synonym for
> "impossibility of finding works in the catalog".
My impression was just, that this "lastname, firstname" suggestion was rather quick
and dirty, allthough Markus wanted DC to be the opposite. I've provided some examples
to show that it might not be that easy to give rules that can be accepted by everyone.
> Our training lets us know that quick and dirty can't work in the
> long run, so we must speak out.
That was also my intention.
Best regards,
- Michael
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|