>Why do libraries not use title case for titles?
I was told by Clyde Pettus in 1949 that it was for two reasons: ease
of typing and ease of reading. I do find it easier to read (but that
is perhaps because I am accustomed to it).
BTW she told me that tracing on the verso of the card had no periods
because they made bumps on the recto, if any of you remember that
practice.
The reasons for transcribing as a sentence given by John Myers,
Martha Yee and Greta de Groat seem convincing to me.
I would emphasize one and add one.
First, title page practice varies widely, from all lower case, to
mixed case, to all upper case. Unless we are to follow title page
practice, it would be change from source as now. If we are to follow
title page practice, what do we do for work and expression records,
when practice varies among manifestions?
Second, one of the stated aims of RDA is that records will be
compatible with AACR2 records. It would be a lot of work to change
all previous records to avoid an unsightly jumble in browse lists.
LC's "Green Book" (for description) was based on the 1908 rules, which
in turn were based on Cutter 1876, as amended by A.L.A. in 1883. (LC
distributed its supplementary rules on cards as "Flex-o-type rules".)
A preliminary edition of the A.L.A rules was published in 1902 by LC,
and in 1908 by A.L,A. The 1908 rules accepted some suggestions from
the [British] Library Association. The "Red Book" (for entries) was
published by A.L.A., and the "Green Book" by LC, both in 1949. The
first AACR was published in 1967. All have titles transcribed as a
sentence.
I see no advantage in change for the sake of change. In what way
would access be *improved* by a mix of capitalization practices?
And yes, I did start under the 1908 rules. Any other ancients out
there?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
