Mac's comment here points to the huge question of how the ILS will be able
to interpret metadata to users. As difficult as it has been to communicate
the WEMI concepts to librarians, I expect that it will become even more
challenging for a typical user to interpret a "Contained in (work)" note,
not understanding the conceptual aspect of FRBR structure as distinct from
the physical description to which they (and, to be sure, we) are accustomed.
Aaron
Aaron Smith
Cataloger, The Genealogy Center
Allen County Public Library
Fort Wayne, Ind.
aaronkaysm...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
> Robert Maxwell said:
>
> >730 0# $i Index to (work): $a Tipiṭaka. ǂp Suttapiṭaka.
>
> We would find more helpful:
>
> 630 0# $a Tipiṭaka. ǂp Suttapiṭaka$vIndexes.
>
>
> >730 0# $i Contained in (work): $a Journal of the Pali Text Society.
>
>
> But it is NOT contained in the Journal. Why would we lie to patrons?
> It was originally published in the Journal.
>
> One could be truthfully say:
>
>
> 730 0# $iOrginally published in: $a Journal of the Pali Text
> Society,$n1905-1906, pages xxx-xxx.
>
> All relationships can't be reduced to a set list of phrases.
>
> We presently plan to delete $i's in added entries on export. They are
> too misleading, and present OPACs aren't equipped to display them.
>
> Yes, what I put in 730$i is free text. Better free text than a lie!
> I don't *want* the computer to do anything with it but display it.
> But 490/830 or 503/730 would work without expensive ILS upgrades.
> Having it machince changed to "Part of" is also a lie, even if a more
> easily understood lie. Is the game worth the candle?
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
