Quoting "Kevin M. Randall" <k...@northwestern.edu> (in part):
And I am so glad that 440 was retired. I'd be all for adding 130 or 240 to
all records, if the MARC format is going to have a long enough life ahead of
it. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with the logic for adding new
fields to existing records, but I fear that figuring out the process of
actually coordinating and carrying out the changes in the world's databases
might be a nightmare.
Yes; but for one point.
240 in itself does not constitute an entire access point: it has to be
combined with 100/110/111 to create the name-title which is the name
of the related entity (work or manifestation).
I can look a bit further.
Works which are the joint product of two or more creators still get
short shrift, of course, the first-named agent (entity) being
credited. That does poor service when it comes to such situations as
the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, or the plays of Beaumont &
Fletchers, or thousands of other joint creations.
When we create new structures and conventions, we ought not to look
only at the first, most immediate situation. Genuine provision for
recording work and expression relationships in manifestation-based
records needs to go a bit further.
In this case, I'm prepared to admit Jim Weinheimer's often-repeated
charge that we're still in the shadow of the card catalogue. I think
we could devise efficient ways to encode the necessary data in MARC
21, and in a way that will enable older systems (not designed for such
extended provisions) to use the datya no worse than they do now
(supposing the data is actually there). Some may be better carried in
the authority data, perhaps.
And we record the data with all the essential information in
sufficient granularity and consistently, surely it should be possible
to extract it in other forms for other applications.
Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
