Posting to Autocat
On 3/17/2016 8:32 AM, Fatima al-Bazzal wrote:
I have checked SCM (Pattern Headings: Languages H 1154) that you’ve sent, but i still have questions and concerns. As for period subdivisions, the general rule says: “If the period subdivisions listed below and established under English language are not appropriate for another language, establish the appropriate subdivision under the specific language”
1-What is meant by “not appropriate” in the quotation above? And how can i establish new appropriate period subdivisions?
On 3/17/2016 11:54 AM, Kuperman, Aaron wrote:
If you are not a member of SACO, you should contact PSD directly to propose Arabic-specific subdivisions.
This can provide an illustration of how changing to a non-MARC format, such as Bibframe (but it can be many other formats) can widen a cataloger’s possibilities, for better or worse. I would like to use “Russian language” as an example. In LCSH, the historical subdivisions are:
In Wikipedia, there are the following possibilities:
– Kievan period and feudal breakup
– The Moscow period (15th–17th centuries)
– Empire (18th–19th centuries)
– Soviet period and beyond (20th century)
With a format other than MARC, I could add a subject for something like “Russian language–Moscow period (15th-17th centuries)” and instead of using the linked data reference that points to id.loc.gov, I could point to dbpedia (or Wikidata) and everything would be valid. If a subject I wanted didn’t already exist, I could create it myself in Wikipedia and Wikidata and refer to that. Or I could make my own linked data end point.
I am not saying that something like this should be done, but I have no doubt at all that it will be done, because that’s part of the purpose of linked data, and I think there are scads of catalogers who would absolutely love to do this.
This will happen someday. What will be the consequences for the catalog, the catalog users and the catalogers?
Hard to say. But as with everything, there will be good points as well as bad ones.