I would like to think that Mac's definition of quality cataloging is
one that all catalogers share. We do not adhere to rules just for the
sake of adhering to rules; we adhere to rules in order to provide
accurate and thorough description of resources that facilitates access
to materials.
Karen Coyle's posting caught my eye because our Network has been dealing
with an increase in reported ISBN problems lately. When we implemented
book covers and reviews in our public catalog (linking by ISBN), we
began to receive reports from patrons of mis-matches and double-matches
of titles
I would like to think that Mac's definition of quality
cataloging is one that all catalogers share. We do not
adhere to rules just for the sake of adhering to rules; we
adhere to rules in order to provide accurate and thorough
description of resources that facilitates access to materials.
Amy Hart wrote:
Karen Coyle's posting caught my eye because our Network has been dealing
with an increase in reported ISBN problems lately. When we implemented
book covers and reviews in our public catalog (linking by ISBN), we
began to receive reports from patrons of mis-matches and
Riley, Jenn wrote:
OK, but you need to take that a step further - what exactly is it that users of some type we care about can do because
a record is accurate or thorough that they can't do if it's not? (What does
thorough mean anyways? The record doesn't say the book is blue. Isn't that
Jenn said:
We have to be more specific than facilitate access - what
real-world discovery needs do we know about that will be affected by
a record that doesn't meet this quality metric?
If the information in the record does not accurately reflect the
information on the item, duplicate orders
Our current methods of title transcription (capitalize only the first word,
and any proper name) convey more information than standard citation
capitalization does, since in a transcribed title you can tell which words
are proper names and which are not. It is not uncommon for this practice to
I guess title case would actually be The Road to Perdition (smile)
but your point is well taken. Though libraries seem to be in the
minority for English language, what are citation practices in other
countries? I've been working a lot lately with opera record labels,
and i notice that titles
Well yes, the practice of title case is English-centric, it is definitely not
the practice in French or Italian, (nor any of the Romance languages, I think).
Imposing title case on those languages would definitely seem odd to speakers of
those languages, and would be an annoying, albeit minor,
Why do libraries not use title case for titles?
I was told by Clyde Pettus in 1949 that it was for two reasons: ease
of typing and ease of reading. I do find it easier to read (but that
is perhaps because I am accustomed to it).
BTW she told me that tracing on the verso of the card had no
At 03:51 PM 1/23/2008, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Second, one of the stated aims of RDA is that records will be
compatible with AACR2 records. It would be a lot of work to change
all previous records to avoid an unsightly jumble in browse lists.
Well, I would take compatible to mean that most
Kevin M. Randall said:
I don't think that change would be for the sake of change. One of the
reasons (perhaps the biggest reason?) for wanting to loosen up the rules on
capitalization is so copy can be accepted from other sources without having
to correct capitalization.
And this helps
John F. Myers wrote in part:
Why we would prefer sentence case over title case is debatable. I can
think of several factors. ...
Lastly, sentence case makes it clearer that an embedded title is present.
Cutter and ALA are quite clear in capitalizing the first word of a title
that appears
13 matches
Mail list logo
