Alex Satrapa wrote:
> Once you've discovered various resources are available, then you can go
> to a specialist database for specialist information about it. Don't try
> to turn DC into MARC, otherwise you'll have two MARC standards and no
> DC. DC should be about "this resource exists", not "this resource is the
> exact instance of the document you happen to be looking for". If you
> *knew* you were looking for a specific copy of a specific text, why
> aren't you looking at a specialist catalog in the first place?
I don't advocate turning DC into MARC. For the purposes of this
discussion, the format is irrelevant--I don't care if it's MARC, DC,
IMS, cards or paper slips. This discussion concerns the information that
goes *into* the format (whatever it is): how important is it for this
information to be entered in a consistent, and coherent, fashion? It
doesn't have to be AACR2, but it's a handy source to use.
It may seem strange to the user, but the problems of cataloging have
almost nothing to do with the MARC format. We don't sit around
agonizing: "Do I use a 100 or 260? Do I use ‡k or ‡s?" Our discussions
and arguments come from the information that goes inside the MARC
fields: "What is the title for this item? How do I describe this complex
paging? Is this a part of something bigger, and if so, what? What is the
form of the heading I should use?"
>How interesting. Sounds like DC has a future after all. The more rules
>you put into how things are cataloged, and the more fields you add for
>data to be entered in (eg: Uniform Title, Title, Subtitle, Alternate
>Title, Marshmallow Title, Ridiculously Named Title), the easier it is to
>lose resources to a badly formed search. DC has the advantage of having
>only one title that can be a repeated field, rather than many
>specialisations of Title.
The purpose of DC is resource discovery, something I agree with. Web
documents are more ephemeral and therefore bibliographic description
seems to be less important than for print items. When cataloging
anything, I don't care what is the title of the item, I just want
searchers to find my resource in many ways. Your example of Title is
interesting. These are the possibilities from MARC.
210 - Abbreviated Key Title
222 - Key Title
A unique title for a serial that is assigned in conjunction with an ISSN
recorded in field 022 by national centers under the auspices of the
International Serials Data System.
240 - Uniform Title
242 - Translation of Title by Cataloging Agency
243 - Collective Uniform Title
245 - Title Statement
246 - Varying Form of Title
Is it useful for the user to know the specifics of all these types of
titles? For web documents (ephemera in library terms), I don't know--I
think it's a debatable point. Some may be more important than others.
Still, if we want to make things consistent with items that are already
exist, perhaps we should consider somthing. But just to dismiss it all
out of hand is incorrect.
Cataloging theory has a long history, and includes some very intelligent
people. To simply throw it out (or 99% of it) should not be done without
some serious consideration.
> DC should be about "this resource exists"
I agree completely. But something that appears to be very simple ("this
resource exists") becomes extremely complex in the reality of a large
database. That is precisely the reason for consistency.
I think it's so interesting that people continually say they want the
web to operate like a library, but when we talk about what we do, we are
dismissed.
My own concern is: I want to be a part of the solution, and I believe DC
can help. But if, based on my knowledge and experience, I believe that
something cannot work, I will not advocate it. To say that consistency
is unimportant throws out centuries of experience.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
