This is a good and important point, and only needs one clarification: the concept and phrase "access point" actually arose BEFORE the card catalog (pre-1890), when all catalogs were a series of printed books. I suspect that few people realize how extremely recent the card catalog is. This is interesting to reflect on (among other reasons) because we have really, in a very short period, gone thru three phases, each introducing more flexibility to the catalog: printed books, to the card catalog, to the computerized catalog. In keeping with Jim's post, access point was especially crucial when there was least flexibility.
Mark Prejsnar Cataloging/Acquisitions Services MacMillan Law Library Emory University 1301 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30322 USA ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:30 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Access points. Was: RDA comments I've reflected on this at some length, and have decided that my opinion of "access points" is not just nit-picking semantics. It's something that I was hoping that RDA would clarify since it is an important issue to understand intellectually, which concerns the possibilities of new technology and the general world of information, but it doesn't appear that they have. The term "access point" has not been accurate since the introduction of the computerized catalog because any part of the bibliographic record (even ill. in the 300 field) can be a point of access if it is so desired. In fact, some of these so-called "access points" would be considered anything but "points of access" for the public at large. For example, I may want something by the "Bank of Tokyo" whereas the heading is "Tōkyō Ginko." I think you would be hard pressed to convince a non-librarian that this is a "point of access" since it would never occur to them unless they happened to know Japanese. Therefore, "access point" assumes the existence and use of cross-references. The very concept of "access point" is a remnant of the card catalog since any part of the record can serve as an entryway into the bibliographic record. Users are no longer forced to find the correct drawer to search through (i.e. the original "access point") And full text searching with non-library communities, especially with this agreement between Google Books and the publishers, but also as journal (full-text) indexes are incorporated into the mix, all of these absolutely *must* be considered in this equation if we are going to be discussing how to fit into the world of information as it is today, and as it will be. Therefore, "access point" is a misnomer and a new name should be found, since the essential function served by the traditional access point is still just as valid today as ever. Since the introduction of the computer catalog, the traditional access point has been a way to create sets of items that are intellectually related in some ways: by their authors, titles and subjects. So, they provide a semantic area of reliability for a search on, e.g. "Tōkyō Ginkō" so that all items related to this concept will come together. This is somewhat different from the traditional "access point" but no less important. Now, the label of the "access point" is another issue. When we begin to use URIs instead of text strings, the actual heading can change in all kinds of ways. For example, I would like to change from Tōkyō Ginkō to Bank of Tokyo because I do not know Japanese. This could be done today, since in a correctly configured system, the user could determine the form of name of the heading. But we could use the official German or Italian forms as well, if all of these forms are available for use (which I hope will be done). This would assume major reworking of the authority files but in a forward-looking fashion. So now, we have a mass of records that expert catalogers have assigned to various intellectual/semantic sets, and where the labels for each set (i.e. the headings) can change. How do people, very possibly sitting and looking at the Google search box (where many people begin) actually find the set(s) they want? They can do it in the traditional way of browsing, but this is very rarely done anymore. I don't know what the methods will be, but I've seen some interesting attempts and I think that this is a great, fun place for experimentation! It is important to note that continuing to create these intellectual sets of records remains just as important as ever, no matter what the technological environment. So, I think the term "access point" no longer defines reality and should be consigned to oblivion, along with the dodo. I'm not very good at naming things, but I can leave that to others. I honestly do not believe this is nit-picking, and many issues are concealed in this term. We need to get away from all vestiges of making cards since they are just too limiting today in so many ways. If others consider this nit-picking, I apologize in advance. But as to the other issue: should RDA be addressing the need of "access points"? Of course it should. Otherwise, we can just take ISBD and have done with it. Jim Weinheimer > My intention here was not to get into aflame war. I spend a good portion > of my day constructing music uniformtitles according to AACR2. I > participate in the NACO Music Project and ama believer in cooperative > cataloging. You will find no bigger advocate forwell constructed access > points formulated to defined standards. So yes,we need explicit > instructions for constructing access points. But do theynecessarily have > to be those instructions in RDA? That was my only point. What I am trying > to get at is that itseems the access point construction instructions > (especially for music accesspoints) probably don't need to be as specific > as they are. RDAdoesn't mandate how bibliographic data should be > constructed ordisplayed. It only mandates that certain elements be > recorded. Iwas applying this same thinking to access points. RDA should > quite properlymandate that certain elements appear in the access point. > But maybe itdoesn't need to be specific as to how those elements > areconstructed. Mandate that the medium should appear in the > accesspoint. But do you need to tell me how the component parts of the > mediumstatement need to be ordered? Or formatted? Maybe not. Damian > Iseminger From: ResourceDescription and Access / Resource Description and > Access[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On BehalfOf Kevin M. Randall > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 20084:16 PM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA comments I guess I still failto see why RDA > should not be concerned with access point construction. RDA is all > about--repeat, ALL ABOUT--creating bibliographic metadata that canbe used as > widely as possible, with the primary environment being the libraryworld. > How that goal can possibly be met without explicit instructions oncreation of > access points is just beyond me. If I'm missing somethingcrucial, please > enlighten me. Kevin M. RandallPrincipal > SerialsCatalogerBibliographicServices Dept.NorthwesternUniversity Library1970 > Campus DriveEvanston, IL 60208-2300email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > (847)491-2939fax: (847) 491-4345 From: Resource Descriptionand > Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Damian Iseminger > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 20082:06 PM > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA comments My point, which I inelegantly phrased > inthe quoted sentence below, is that perhaps RDA should not be concerned with > howthe access point is constructed, but rather that an access point > exists. In a shared environment, I agree that we do need standards for > construction. I just think that maybe those standards could be issued by > affected groupsinstead of being mandated in RDA. For example, OCLC could > say that accesspoints should be constructed by a certain set of standards in > order tocontribute or the PCC would mandate that access points be constructed > in acertain way in order to be a member. I realize that maybe RDA has a > roleto play by recommending best practices for access point construction, but > Idon't think it should be the final word. There are other > possibilitiesout there. Damian Iseminger ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).
