J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Hal Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here, the only value I see is in literal transcription, and I don't
understand what significant value is obtained.
Anything which departs from literal transcription is what must be
defended in my opinion.
As Mac knows, I believe in the value of transcription; but not
necessarily blind transcription. Bibliographic records have to be built
by applying discrimination and intelligence to the raw data; if the raw
data has particular significance, a linked graphic image may well serve
the purpose better than a plain text transcription. We don't follow raw
top-to-bottom transcription for a title page such as:
BERNARD CORNWELL
Sharpe's Escape
Richard Sharpe
and the Bussaco Campaign
1811
-- we follow neither the capitalization nor the order of elements (the
statement of responsibility consists of data which precedes what is
taken as title proper and additional title information); and the
distinction between title proper and other information is conveyed by
larger and bolder typography, but we don't attempt to convey such detail.
It's my view that what "ordinary" users look for, and expect to find, is
the "normalized" form of the title, whether it's a matter of pure
transcription of orthographical or other typographical errors, or of
words or letters positioned so that they are shared between distinct
words or phrases on the page or screen. Cataloguers and other
"informed" users can be expected to have technical capabilities beyond
what the ordinary run of clients have. Am I wrong?
Hal Cain
Joint Theological Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 12/01/2006
