[Please pardon any duplications from cross-posting]
Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners
January 20, 2012: 1:30-3:00 PM
Dallas Convention Center, Room C146
Co-sponsored by ALCTS and ALISE
On the Record, the report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the
Heidrun,
this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not
going to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight
coupling between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of
publishing. In essence, nearly EVERY published item is an aggregate -
books
You're invited to attend the ALCTS CaMMS Cataloging Classification Research
Interest Group at ALA Midwinter
Topic: Traditions and Transitions in Batchloaded Catalog Data
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2012
Time: 10:30 am - Noon
Location: Dallas Convention Center A306
In the current economic
Bibliographic Control: A Meeting Between Educators and Practitioners
January 20, 2012: 1:30-3:00 PM
Dallas Convention Center, Room C146
Co-sponsored by ALCTS and ALISE
Whatever other outcomes there may be, I hope there will be a strong
recommendation that imparting basic cataloguing skills return
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the report yet, though it's waiting for me
on my desk]
To me, the desire/need to have WEM for an aggregate, as well as W(EM)
for some or all of the constituents, doesn't bring us back to ISBD/MARC.
In some cases (e.g., music sound recordings, conference
Maybe what we need to do is develop some use cases and see how they
would turn out. I'm less concerned about the cataloger view than the
user view. You've probably run into some description of looking at
FRBR from bottom-up vs. top down. Some folks consider the
cataloger view to be
6 matches
Mail list logo
