Yeah, I think this is an important point. Many of the AACR2 elements
combine a user-presentable string (which often is transcribed, but not
always) with a key meant to establish a link.
Good old "authorized headings" are another example, that I've ranted
about before. :) I think the authorized heading combines a
(non-transcribed) user-displayable string with a key meant to establish
a link, to the same kind of ill effect that Kevin describes with serial
titles.
I know Karen has disagreed with me calling this
key-to-establish-a-relationship element an "identifier" before, so I've
avoided that here, but the basic point I think remains, and is the one
that Kevin is making.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin, this is a great observation and one that I would like us to
incorporate into our thinking about the RDA vocabularies. The
transcriptions from the piece are a certain kind of information that
must be retained. Those don't necessarily serve the link function,
however. This "double duty" of many fields is one that is plaguing us as
we try to assess the RDA elements.
Would it be possible to separate the descriptive transcription of fields
from the linking and relationships between "resources" (considering a
book a resource AND the series itself as a resource). In the talk I did
at Code4Lib I used the publisher name as an example. There would be good
reasons to link bibliographic records to records for publishers (at
least for modern works). The latter could have contact information or at
least link to the publisher information in ones acquisitions system.
This is NOT the same information as the transcribed publisher name that
is in the publication statement.
kc
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
At 09:15 AM 5/3/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
The question with series is whether it shouldn't be another resource,
linked to the bibliographic item being described. So then the series
statement would be replaced with a series link.
Actually, I think series would be BOTH. That is, the series
*statement*, being a transcription from the item described, is
fundamentally about that item, not the series. It's giving the series
information as it pertains to that item only; it's not a description of
the series, but a description of the item being described (sorry for the
RDA-like circular wording). Thus it is a property of that item.
The series *link* (tracing, whatever) is fundamentally about the
relationship, and gives the name of the series in its agreed-upon
established form, regardless of how it is presented in the series
statement on the item described. The series link, then, is a property
of ... the relationship?
There are two different functions to be served, and they cannot be
handled by one single property. (A problem with the CONSER Standard
Record is that it thinks both functions *can* be served by one
property. And a problem with the LC series policy is that it thinks the
latter function is of no importance.)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-4345
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
