I agree with Kelley, there are certain fields for which we need some sort of normalized or consistent data. Martha pointed out the usefulness of some of our "redundant" fields in her recent article on MARC. I'm finding this out the hard way in a museum i'm volunteering in which has a non-MARC system--without a date fixed field, i have to enter the date field always starting with the date (in other words, 1993 not c1993 and not [1993?] because otherwise there is no way to sort by date.
We do need someplace to consistently put and state data like Widescreen, Fullscreen, but how far do we go--Pan and scan, Letterboxed, Windowboxed? I wonder the same thing about our "common terminology" in the 300 for electronic resources where we know we can use CD-ROM and DVD-ROM, but can we also use CD-R, or DVD+R? What kind of disk is used in an X-BOX game?--they don't identify it, but my guess is that is probably a DVD-ROM, but i don't know for sure. I've had a couple of games on UMD (Universal media disc), which actually is more of a cartridge. I have no idea if that name is common terminology. Anyway, we do need some sort of semi-controlled list. A big Yes to Martha on needing to get DVD, VHS, etc. into the physical/technical description. I'm ok with the AMIM usage: 1 videodisc (DVD) and i was pleased when i read Ch. 3 and saw that DVD, VHS and things like NTSC and PAL were data elements instead of notes. I was very disappointed when i looked at the actual ISBD/MARC examples and saw that it was back in the note again! Apparently since ISBD says its a note and MARC has no special tag for it in the 300, than ISBD/MARC practice is for it to end up in the note no matter what RDA says. Is this the end result of all our struggling to get important data like that (and original date, country of production etc) into places where they will be visible to the user and be able to machine-process them only to be straightjacketed by ISBD and MARC? When we were dealing only with cards or with OPAC displays, i would have agreed with Martha that cataloging was much like expository writing. I used to think that it didn't matter exactly which field something was in (since there are often several options) as long as someone could read the record and interpret it. But in the current environment of sharing and manipulating data, i no longer think that. The challenge is to find a means to create records that can be given an intelligible eye-readable display and be machine-manipulable--and to have more streamlined rules so that (unfortunately for us) you don't have to have a master's degree to apply them. We do really need lots of data elements, and perhaps sometimes they need to be entered redundantly (as in the dates cited above), and any way you slice it, data entry takes time. Hiring cheaper workers (or students, or in the case of museums, volunteers) will enable more records to be created for less money. That's what our administrators really want. If we as librarians can't come up with some reasonable solution (and find a niche for ourselves in the this new reality) i fear that the whole process will be taken away from us, and the baby really will be thrown out with the bathwater. Sorry for the gloomy ending, i'm reading too much RDA stuff! Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Quoting "McGrath, Kelley C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I will preface this by saying that I have not yet read the chapter 3 > draft and am just responding to Martha's comment below. I certainly > agree that it seems unlikely that cataloging can be reduced to pull-down > lists. No matter how many rules there are, the number and variety of > exceptions that exist is often under-appreciated by those who have not > cataloged on a regular basis. On the other hand, it often seems to me > that we need more pull-down list-like categories in our records. I would > like to see more controlled access points for things that we currently > put in free text notes, like widescreen vs. fullscreen. Really the > existing fixed field data in MARC records are pull-down lists stored in > a more concise form (although outside the universe of AACR). I wonder if > we could not be more effective in many areas with controlled data > supplemented by free-text notes (e.g. record languages in controlled > form as in MARC 008/041 and only use notes like MARC 546 to supplement > or explain). However, I am not sure how to balance the need for > consistent, controlled vocabulary and the need for flexibility to deal > with exceptions and new or weird things. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martha Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [MAJOR ISSUE] In general, these chapters feel like they were designed to > support the construction of pull-down lists for data entry. This seems > like a fundamental misconception of the nature of cataloging, which is > actually a kind of expository writing. Those skilled in its practice > can concisely and accurately describe anything unusual collected by a > library, archive or museum, even when there are not specific cataloging > rules to cover it. This art of cataloging can never be reduced to > selecting from pull-down lists. The mechanized combination of terms > from pull-down lists evident in the examples in this draft make us sound > illiterate. > > ------------------------------------- > Kelley McGrath > Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian (Audiovisual) > Bracken Library > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306-0161 > Phone: (765) 285-3350 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
