To continue this line of dissention, I can't help but notice that that bastion
of the fabled web 2.0, Wikipedia, also shows references using such terribly
terribly outmoded terms such as et al. ed. etc.. I went to a cataloguing
meeting recently where the removal of such terms was celebrated in
Mr. Kelleher wrote:
To continue this line of dissention, I can't help but notice that that bastion
of the fabled web 2.0, Wikipedia, also shows references using such terribly
terribly outmoded terms such as et al. ed. etc.. I went to a cataloguing
meeting recently where the removal of such
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:22 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
Wise and witty Hal Cain of Australia
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,
8 matches
Mail list logo
