Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" <m...@slc.bc.ca>: > Capitalization as found would be acceptable in 505 contents and 520 > summaries, but 245 titles are seen in hitlists with other titles, so > uniformity is more important. > > In the upper case examples I checked, the all caps do not reflect the > source, according to Amazon images. There is no rationalization apart > from bone laziness in harvesting data.
Quoting Hal Cain: >Contents notes rendered all uppercase have attracted hostile comment already >(perhaps not here, but certainly on Autocat), when incorporated into >(AACR2) >LC records from linked data produced or captured elsewhere. It's widely >understood that continuous uppercase text is more difficult for most >>people >to read. >I fail to understand what reasonable purpose can be served in using uppercase. > If it's as a paltry attempt to represent the style of the titlepage (or other >>>>source of primary identifying data for a document), that purpose would be >better served by attaching a link to a titlepage image -- which is a strategy >>>>I'm considering for a forthcoming project with early printed books. Perhaps not surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with both Mac and Hal. And I would ask Jonathan and any other list members who see value in all-caps display of titles if they have any thoughts on how to transcribe a title in which all letters are caps, but the letters at the start of the title (and possibly at the start of each word) are _larger_ caps than the caps that make up the rest of the title. I don't think my keyboard or my cataloging software is capable of creating caps in different sizes in the same field, at least not easily. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
