 |
 |
Stu, I understand the desire to create a very simple rule. Rules are important (I'm a cataloger, after all!), but they also must always relate to something real. If a rule cannot help solve an actual case, we must question its existence. In this case, there is a site that needs to be cataloged. How do I do it according to 1:1? Any rules we devise should help me solve this problem. According to Debra Shapiro, this item is cataloged in CORC, and with the note: "Provides access to versions of the text in .rtf, plain text, hypercard, and .pdf formats, as well as to home pages for the Library and the College." In fact, there are additionally: a Windows Help format, two html versions (one broken up by books and chapters, the other available in a single file), plus, another translation by the Rev. Benham. How many records does this item(s) get? Does it get eight records, one record, two records, or many more records (one for each chapter)? According to a strict reading of 1:1 (as I understand it), it gets eight records. I personally believe there are two intellectual works, and thus, there should be two records: one for each translation. One translation has seven formats. Still, I realize it can be argued in many other ways. Is my interpretation wrong, or is it right? Or is there any right and wrong? These are questions that creators/catalogers will be facing, and any rules should help them determine the answer. If there is no right and wrong according to 1:1 (which is what I think we should decide upon), the question changes and becomes: How can we link all the records together? Jim Weinheimer Princeton University [log in to unmask] "Weibel,Stu" wrote: > > Examples are always useful, and induction may well be the best way to > generate the principle, but we really need one paragraph for Diane's User > Guide that articulates what we want to have happen, and then illustrates > with examples. > > A Dublin Core T-shirt for a succinct statement (1000 characters or less) > > stu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Weinheimer [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:57 PM > > To: Weibel,Stu > > Cc: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: 1:1 debate > > > > "Weibel,Stu" wrote: > > > Is there anyone who would care to distill the arguments into a principle > > > that can promote good practice while acknowledging that blind adherence > > that > > > forces us to do silly things (like promoting a person who scans a > > photograph > > > to the same level as one who took it) is inimical to good retrieval? > > > stu > > > > How about a real-world example? Here is a very famous book, "The > > Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis. One of the sites with this work > > is: > > http://ccel.wheaton.edu/kempis/imitation/imitation.html > > This is a modern translation by Aloysius Croft and Harold Bolton of an > > old Latin work entitled "Imitatio Christi". Different formats are > > available: RTF, htm, pdf, text, Windows Help and Hypercard. > > Another translation by Rev. Benham is also available, along with > > (somewhere!) various other translations through FTP. > > > > How does 1:1 fit in here? Are there any takers? > > Jim Weinheimer > > Princeton University > > [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%