Secondly, 4.2 carves into stone the approach to the multiple versions problem that has created so much havoc in existing catalogs. 4.2 is completely contrary to the general objective of "the convenience of the user."
------------------------- Not only that, but earlier the document says, "The rules in a cataloguing code should be defensible and not arbitrary." Yet there is no evidence supplied to support 4.2, "In general, a separate bibliographic description should be created for each manifestation." Without making this statement defensible (and it would be very hard to defend-the evidence appears to point in the other direction), this isn't library science, it's dogma. Karen G. Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
