It seems worthy of note that when presented with beguiling cases of shared words and/or letters, respondents propose ad-hoc solutions to comply with the rule, and individual cases are sometimes susceptible of several ad-hoc solutions. The user then has to reinterpret, without guidance, these ad-hoc solutions back into an approximation of the original typographical layout (if he/she was aware of it in the first place) to determine that the record found represents the resource sought. This hardly seems to be saving the time of the user. The existing (AACR2) rule produced consistent and unambiguous results, even if the cuteness of the original layout might be ignored. If it was felt that some users might think "Canadian bibliographies canadiennes", etc., was the actual title, a note and access point could always be made from that form.
Ed Jones -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Cain Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 2:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 1.6.6 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
