Thank you very much Rebecca, Karen and Esme for your replies. It is
really a privilege to be able to ask a question here and get answers
like these.

Regarding the DC Creator issue, I probably nave a different
perspective on DC than many here, because my first contact with DC was
not as a librarian but as a content management specialist. In the
content management community DC is widely adopted, but a lot (most) of
the metadata one finds in a CMS is new, born digital and often created
by users directly inside the system itself (think of a blog post).
Also, in a CMS most metadata is generated by users without any
knowledge of cataloging best practices, so the simplicity of
unqualified DC is adequate. These factors make it very desirable to
have a simple Creator attribute, which is often a very important
search criteria for users. That is why I found it strange that LC
chose not to map any tag to Creator.

Now with my librarian hat on, and your explanations, the reasoning is
very clear.

Thanks a lot!



On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Guenther, Rebecca <> wrote:
> The reason we used DC Contributor instead of Creator is because the semantics 
> do not map well to MARC creators/contributors. Creators in MARC can be in 1XX 
> and 7XX; since 1XX is not repeatable, additional creators go in 7XX. 
> Contributors in Dublin Core play a secondary role in the resource ("An entity 
> responsible for making contributions to the resource.") vs. Creator ("An 
> entity primarily responsible for making the resource.").If we simply mapped 
> the name in 1XX to Creator and the name in 7XX to Contributor, these may or 
> may not be correct in terms of semantics. In MARC primary vs. secondary 
> contributions are not what distinguish recording in 1XX vs 7XX, but the 
> particular contribution that was made may be included in the role subfield 
> ($e in textual form or $4 in coded form). Unfortunately we find that many 
> MARC records do not record the role, but that is because of previous 
> cataloging policy, not anything in MARC.   Another point is that whether the 
> contribution is prim!
>  y or secondary may vary depending on the type of material, so giving the 
> specific contribution may be more useful in the long run (for instance, an 
> illustrator may be considered a secondary contribution in the book world, but 
> if the resource is in a museum it may be considered the primary contribution).
> It might be noted that some time ago (the year that the DC conference was in 
> Florence, I can't remember exactly when that was) the Dublin Core Usage Board 
> (of which I was then a member) attempted to combine creator and contributor 
> (and publisher) to become one DC element (Agent), but implementers objected 
> to it, so the proposal was withdrawn. But that was recognition that the 
> distinction being made might not have been the best way to go. That was also 
> a factor in mapping MARC to DC this way.
> Rebecca
> Date:    Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:35:35 -0700
> From:    "Cowles, Esme" <>
> Subject: Re: Why does the MARC to DC crosswalk refuse to use Creator?
> It looks like it's using Contributor instead.  So I'm guessing the sticking 
> point is that it's hard to figure out what Contributors are primary, so it's 
> safer to just punt and put them all in Contributor instead.
> -Esme
> --
> Esme Cowles <>
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
>  creating the Internet." -- Al Gore
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote:
>> I am mystified by the discovery that the MARC to DC Crosswalk does not
>> map *any* MARC tag to the DC Creator element!
>> Does anyone know the reasoning behind this strange decision?
>> --
>> Luciano Ramalho
>> programador repentista || stand-up programmer
>> Twitter: @luciano
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Senior Networking and Standards Specialist
> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave SE
> Washington, DC 20540
> +1 202 707 5092 (voice)
> +1 202 707 0115 (fax)

Luciano Ramalho
programador repentista || stand-up programmer
Twitter: @luciano

Reply via email to