Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do. If we're listing 3 or 5 or 10 people or entities
'responsible' for an artistic work, why wouldn't we want to be able to
say the nature/role of each entities responsibility? Or, if we do, but
relator codes are a poor device for this, why?
On 11/8/2011 3:25 PM, James Weinheimer wrote:
On 08/11/2011 17:23, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
<snip>
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
<creator> and<contributor> where<creator> is repeatable, thereby creating
multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars
cite in footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added
entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should
adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning
to compiler main entry.
</snip>
Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format
that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry? I have worked a
lot with them and have never found anything resembling a single main
entry. While the practices vary, the main rule is, copy the authors in
the order they appear on the title page. Some stop at a maximum of
four, none more than seven. Some want the forms of names as spelled
out on the item, others say to abbreviate first and middle names.
These formats mostly want people to differentiate between authors and
others, e.g. editors, compilers, and translators, by putting in (ed.)
or mentioning translations. Here is the Chicago format
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html. Another nice
page is from Ursinus
http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/cit_style_mla.htm. Here is
a guide for the Harvard rules
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm "For books with
two, three or four authors of equal status the names should all be
included in the order they appear in the document. Use an *and* to
link the last two multiple authors." These rules, and others, actually
use "et al."!
I admit that these considerations would provide a reason to go back to
the practice of adding relator codes (which I do *not* think is the
right thing to do, by the way).
Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for works
with two or more main entries, it can be done in XML quite easily, but
more difficult with ISO2709. With XML, for a subject entry for Masters
and Johnson (two main entries), you could have (an abbreviated MARCXML
record. I think catalogers can follow):
<record>
<100>
<a>Smith, John</a><d>1960-</d>
</100>
<245>
<a>The book by Masters and Johnson</a>
<b>some thought</b>
<c>by John Smith</c>
</245>
<260>
<a>New York</a>
<b>Random</b>
<c>2011</c>
</260>
<subjectUniformTitle>
<100>
<a>Masters, William Howell</a>
<d>1915-2001</d>
</100>
<100>
<a>Johnson, Virginia</a>
<d>1925-</d>
</100>
<240>
<a>Human Sexual Response</a>
</240>
</subjectUniformTitle>
</record>
The same could be done with an analytic or series, just replacing
<subjectUniformTitle> with <analyticUniformTitle> or
<seriesUniformTitle>. How this could be done in ISO2709, I do not
know, but I won't say that it cannot be done because somebody may
figure out a way, but I can't imagine why anyone should want to. XML
can do it right now and it could be utilized by browsers the world
over--right now. Once we get away from ISO2709, there will be all
kinds of novel bibliographic structures that can be implemented.
ISO2709 leads catalogers to think in certain ways about how
information in structures. There is no need for that any longer.
--
James weinheimerweinheimer.ji...@gmail.com <mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>
First Thus:http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules:http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
