On 06/08/2011 19:00, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
<snip>
But it's not true FRBR, and it doesn't do translations well, and so it
requires extra effort to answer patron queries about titles in our small
language collections. And part of the problem with translations stems
from removing fields like 240 for display purposes when that destroys
the only mechanism left to relate those resources. It's that tangling of
display and user task functionality in fields that causes so much grief.
That's why those aspects of catalog design need to be separated.
Fortunately, FRBR absolutely does NOT depend upon those antiquated
methods, such as collocation by uniform titles, to specify
relationships. As the FRBR report
(http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr2.htm#5) indicates, the
current methods of creating relationships in catalog records are haphazard.
</snip>
FRBR does need the uniform title in some form, that is, some bit of data
that brings the different records together. How that data is to be
encoded, using a 130/240/etc. textual string, or some kind of URI, URJ,
URK, L M N O or P, the final product will be to bring the metadata
records together in some way, just as the heading did in the card
catalog. The primary task is to ensure that it is consistently entered
and then many things can happen. If the information is inconsistent, or
does not exist in textual or some kind of form, there is not enough
information to bring everything together.
As I demonstrated with searching Worldcat, for those records that have
the uniform title entered, collocation of those records can be done
*right now* and there is no reason to change any of our current records
or procedures if the purpose is to get the FRBR-type results to show
what works, expressions, manifestations and items exist. For those
records that do not have the uniform title entered, they fall outside,
and there is nothing to do except to add the uniform titles (or URIs or
whatever), that is, *if* it can be demonstrated that this provides the
public with what they really want (which should not be accepted on
faith) and it is judged worthwhile to edit those records at the cost of
doing other things that our patrons would prefer, such as cataloging
more items, or perhaps cataloging more deeply, with better and more
useful subjects and/or analysing more collections.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
