J. McRee Elrod wrote:
...
These displays are shamefully short on information. They have a
standard by statement, regardless of the relationship of the name to
the manifestation being described (when that information is right
there in the MARC record). They give no indication of pagination for
books, running time for videorecordings, etc. They show NO NOTES!
There is clearly the trend away from transcribed statements towards
more standardized headings. When both are necessary, each for their
own reasons, none neglected without causing trouble. But if access
matters above all else - the result is clear.
The enormous traffic on WEMI these last days indicates that cataloging
departments of the future will be busy all day discussing what the
item in hand actually represents, whether or not an expression
or just a manifestation, or even a new work, and whether or not two
items differ significantly enough to view them as representing two
different manifestations, and so on and so further.
WEMI is good in theory, but will it work in practice? (To turn
Gorman's question on its head.)
Given that a giant leap away from MARC is impossible, can we not
go on very much like we used to but introduce a new subfield into
all headings fields, called relationship. In addition to the
formal relator terms, this subfield would carry the transcribed
information or some useful wording made up for the purpose of
telling the user why this heading is there. Removing that information
from the notes area where it might otherwise be tucked away,
thus making it impossible for software to generate a meaningful
display that puts the heading correctly into context.
This way, the name/title headings could benefit the most, but
name headings no less.
B.Eversberg
