-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:14 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of International Cataloguing
James Weinheimer wrote:
But when cross-references are included, an expert can very often predict a
cross-reference that will lead to the heading, e.g. the authorized form of a
body's name may not be subordinate to another body merely because of the way
it was presented on the title page of the
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of International Cataloguing
James said;
I would only like to add that an authorized form or preferred form is,
most of the time, completely arbitrarily chosen.
I would say that most of the time it is based on the first three
principles of the new international statement of principles, which
could be paraphrased as commons
Makes sense, I agree entirely with what James says too.
Jonathan
James Weinheimer wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:57 PM
To:
My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was
library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would
have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that
Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name.
-Original Message-
My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library
metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified
the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was
anything other than a publisher name.
Maybe, except that the
The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In
other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case
Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not
the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It
should be
The presence of s.n. in an Amazon record is a small, weak hook to
hang anything on; but looking at people's use of other tools can be
informative.
The one that's on my mind lately is Wikipedia. Among the principles
that Wikipedia has adopted are:
Unique entry--there's one article on Capital
Stephen Hearn wrote:
If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than
finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of
one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to
redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a
I read several lists, and I may have gotten this one crossed with
another; but I have seen it argued in the last few weeks and without
counter that preferred headings and cross references are evidence of
librarians' arrogance, and offensive to users who prefer their own
terms. And of course,
11 matches
Mail list logo
