Alex Satrapa wrote:
> <META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="la" CONTENT="Imitatio Christi">
> <META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="en" CONTENT="Imitation of Christ">
> etc
> <META NAME="DC.Language" CONTENT="en">
I personally do not understand this. I'll admit that there is a Latin
title (we can always throw in an extra title) but as a user, I do not
understand what this title means in relation to the document I'm looking
at.
The words "Imitatio Christi" do not exist in the resource. It is
something that must be created by the metadata-cataloger. For the user
to understand what he/she is looking at, should this title be labelled
in a special manner?
> > 2) The title of the larger item it belongs to. In my example, it is a
> > part of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
>
> The collection is an item by itself, with its own DC metadata set. The
> items in that collection will have something like:
>
> DC.Relation = IsPartOf "Christian Classics Ethereal Libarary"
>
> The collection might have:
>
> DC.Relation = HasPart "Imitatio Christo" <-- for the Latin version
> DC.Relation = HasPart "Imitation of Christ" <-- for the English version
So, if we want to say that a series goes into DC.Relation.IsPartOf,
that's fine with me. (That's how I cataloged it in CORC). Would we
handle a French translation of the second book of the Iliad in the same
way?
Again, many times the name of the parent does not appear on the child.
For comprehension's sake, should it be labelled in a special manner?
> > 3) For non-roman alphabet items, there could be a transliterated title.
Different transliterations, e.g. Dostoevsky, Dostoevskii, Dostojewski,
etc. Bernhard might do it one way, I may do it in another way. None of
these versions appear on the item. Again, for the user to understand,
should these versions be labelled?
> They are all the same field - DC.Title. Q.E.D.
I agree that they should all be searched with the same title search.
> > AUTHOR: Adam and Charles Black (Firm)
>
> > Adam and Charles Black are serving as a corporate body here, not "Black,
> > Adam" and "Black, Charles", and the cataloger dealt with it
> > appropriately.
>
> As long as there is a company registered as "Adam and Charles Black",
> I'll accept that. If Adam and Charles Black were acting as a team for
> the production of this work, I'd list them as
>
> DC.Creator = "Black, Adam"
> DC.Creator = "Black, Charles"
The idea of corporate authorship has a very long history. You can read
it in "Corporate authorship" by Michael Carpenter. Suffice it to say
that, if you did that in our library catalog, you'd get in trouble.
If the DC guidelines just say:
Creator:
Guidelines: Whatever you want in any form you want.
We'll have no trouble getting full compliance.
> Well... a person can't be a corporate body. A person can (in Australia
> at least) be a sole trader (in which case, they trade as John Doe, Sole
> Trader). Maybe I've missed something?
What about the "President of the United States" instead of Bill Clinton?
There are many instances when works made in an official capacity are not
the same as personal utterances. The catalog deals with this. Some may
feel this is useless, but others find it a godsend.
Maybe we don't need to deal with this on the web, but it should be
discussed and not dismissed out of hand as unimportant.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|