Um. I think the heart of the problem is that extracting a title isn't simple, although we would all like to be.
Publishers vary in their treatment. People vary in what they assume a TITLE to be. (This is even without thinking about subtitles.) For the example in hand, music is particularly ugly in terms of having lots of character strings that a reasonable person might consider to be the title: (from the container, from the disc/casette/whatever, from the program notes, uniform title) On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Galen Charlton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Weinheimer Jim <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I agree that this is an excellent article that everyone should read, > > but I wrote a comment myself there (no. 7) discussing how this > > article illustrates how important it is to know cataloging rules and/or > > to work closely with experienced catalogers when building something > > like this. It also shows how many programmers concentrate on > > certain parts of a record and tend to ignore the overall view, while > > catalogers concentrate on whole records. > > Is there a way to communicate this gestalt view of bibliographic > records to programmers? I wouldn't expect that any metadata scheme > would be so completely self-describing that a programmer should expect > to approach a pile of nontrivial metadata and do interesting > processing on it without ever having to consult an expert. On the > other hand, a well-designed format ought to support making simple > tasks (such as extracting a title) well, simple. > > Regards, > > Galen > -- > Galen Charlton > [email protected] > -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 [email protected]
