RE: [RDA-L] Linked data

Posting to RDA-L

J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Jim said:

>I agree that doing this (in my idea, this means having more than a single “main entry” or in other words, multiple 1xx fields) …

How is a thesis writer, for example, construct a footnote or bibliography? We are not islands unto ourselves. We are part of a larger bibliographic universe.

I work quite a bit with students and citation formats. I haven’t seen citation rules yet that tells someone to determine a main entry. Their version of the “rule of three” has been–that I have seen–is a rule of seven or so. Some even go beyond that

Very often they do mandate that editors, compilers, translators, etc. be cited as such. The U of Wisconsin has some of the best guides I have seen. Here is their APA guide:
Sample journal article:
Yawn, B. P., Algatt-Bergstrom, P. J., Yawn, R. A., Wollan, P., Greco, M., Gleason, M., et al. (2000). An in-school CD-ROM asthma education program. Journal of School Health, 70, 153-159.

Sample book:
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., & Kamimura, M. (Eds.). (2006). The Latina/o pathway to the Ph.D.: Abriendo caminos. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

And when there are only two names, you use the ampersand:
Hyde, J. S.,& Delamater, J. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Retaining a *single* main entry no longer serves a purpose, although it was absolutely vital in a printed world. I suspect even back in the old days though, they would have said it was not a good thing to favor Gilbert over Sullivan for works to collate together, but it was a necessary evil in the card/printed catalog.

It is still vital to maintain the distinction among primary creativity, secondary creativity, and responsibility for making a resource available. This is why I was always against the Dublin Core agents proposal
Perhaps there are more areas of responsibility that the public will need, such as (the agents proposal points this out somewhere) an automaton, e.g. the software program used for scanning or OCRing a book.