About "Principles of Qualification", Stu Weibel wrote:
>
> In judging the suitability of proposed qualifiers, the DC Usage Committee
> recognized two basic categories of qualifiers....
>
> 1. Encoding Schemes
>
> These qualifiers are pointers to schemes that aid in the interpretation of
> an element value. These schemes include controlled vocabularies and formal
> notations....
>
> 2. Element Refinements
>
> These qualifiers make an element's meaning more specific without extending
> its meaning....
What if one wants to indicate that an element value is conforming with
a code of rules like AACR? This does not make the element's meaning more
specific and is thus not a refinement. Is it, however, a "scheme that
aids in the interpretation of the element value"?
As others pointed out earlier, it is potentially very useful to know that
a value conforms with, say, AACR. For then we know that there will not
be, say, "Stu Weibel" but "Weibel, Stu". Or, there will not be something
like "Agony and the ecstasy, The" but "The agony and the ecstasy".
A personal name *could*, but need not, be part of the Name Authority
File (a controlled vocabulary), but if it is not, it can still conform with
the rules. ("Weibel, Stu", incidentally, is not in the controlled
vocabulary, bus is a valid AACR name form), so this would be worth knowing.
Software cannot ascertain this fact from the value itself.
Regards, B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|