4 Comments

  1. &quot;Move the 100s&quot; — wait, were they putting more than one 100 in the record? That&#39;s definitely no good just for machine processing and general linking — part of the point of the 100 is to make a &#39;citation&#39; form. You definitely can&#39;t have more than one 100. Oh wait, I see, more the single 100 to a 700 instead, righto. <br /><br />But as far as how many authors to list..

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  2. Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />1) Concerning citation form, which I agree is important for users, I have never seen any citation guide demand a single author name 100/main entry type of form for a citation. They always want more, some wanting all of them, some limiting to 4 or (I believe) 7. I have written against maintaining a *single* main entry, which is–so far as I am concerned–a relic

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  3. Ah, in terms of citation form, I didn&#39;t actually mean a HUMAN citation form. I meant a &#39;system&#39; citation form, which is actually part of our legacy pre-machine practices. <br /><br />Consider the way we &#39;cite&#39; a specific manifestation in a 7xx (and some other fields too), in a way that theoretically unambiguously specifies the target of the &#39;link&#39;, without using an

    August 27, 2010
    Reply
  4. For the system citation form you mention, I would like to point out that the normal library ideas of an &quot;expression&quot; and &quot;manifestation&quot; are not followed by many others out there. Publishers include many more manifestations as separate (e.g. paperback vs. hardback are the same manifestation in the library world, but cannot be for publishers), while antiquarian book dealers

    August 28, 2010
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *