Re: Bracketed date in 264

Posting to Autocat

On 18/03/2013 04:28, Myers, John F. wrote:

Writing from home on a Sunday night (and off to a meeting on Monday), so we’ll see whether this posts as gobbledy-gook. 

The research on user habits by the eXtensible Catalog initiative, conducted through the collaboration of librarians, IT, and anthropologists, indicates that users are heavily interested in relationships between information, such as those articulated in FRBR. I report that based on presentations I have attended. I don’t know if there have been formal papers submitted for publication or made available as documentation of their efforts. For access to their presentations, and possibly more, see:

Thanks for that. I had the pleasure of meeting Nancy Foster, the “library anthropologist” (a great name!) at the University of Buffalo, who has done much of the research. Fascinating AND fun.

I would like to point out that the relationships in FRBR do not change anything in a fundamental way, they will just be made more specific with RDA/FRBR. So, while a sequel or adaptation should(!) have always had a tracing for it in our current and past cataloging practices–e.g. an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” should have a related work added entry–that tracing will now be labeled more explicitly than before, so that the relationship which has always been made will now be labelled “adaptation” or whatever. This seemingly simple addition could have the same serious consequences of *decreasing* access as adding the relator codes, unless retrospective updates are made. I discussed this at length in my podcast “Cataloging Matters No. 16: Catalogs, Consistency and the Future”

I still don’t know if catalogers or librarians care much about the serious decrease in access this entails or consider it an unfortunate necessity. But no matter what, we should not expect the public to understand such complex matters.