Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--ARSC responsibility?

[Karl Miller <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:

> 2) I assume that when you say "discographic record" you mean a
> DATA record, not the PHONOrecord (I use the standard library
> terms to avoid confusion, since I do a lot of writing and
> thinking about databases of phonorecords, which can get VERY
> confusing if both are called "records!"...).

I too, find it confusing. In the world of cataloging one refers to the
bibliographic record. Bibliography, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, refers to books, yet a catalog is not generally considered a
bibliography, even if it contains bibliographic records. Hence, I tend to
think of a catalog "record" of a sound recording, to be a discographic
record, even if the information included is not the same as one encounters
in a "discography." I guess I just don't know of the appropriate words to
use.

I believe one should be able to prepare a "discography" from a catalog of
discographic records. I also believe that a comprehensive "universal"
catalog, with good discographic records could have the potential to
obviate the need for the compilation of any discography. With such a
"utopian" database, any "discography" could be created by chosing the
appropriate search terms and qualifiers.

In many cataloging circles, (the catalogers I talk to)
there is the notion of a "typical user." A "typical user," may well not be
interested in matrix numbers. I wonder how many music catalogers even
know about matrix and/or stamper numbers. So, the "typical"
(non-quantifiable) user becomes the standard to determine the depth of
description.

> Finally, one thing that ARSC could (and should) do is to
> attempt to standardize the formats of these two types of
> data records! This could in turn make the data from more
> databases easily interchangeable between users. Remember
> that what should be done is the definition of a selected
> set of "core fields," so that each user could add other
> fields as he/she/it saw fit regardless of whether others
> needed or wanted to use such fields.
>
> Comment ca?

And to make these core fields easy to identify and to make every effort to
simplify the preparation for the data entry and to identify what core
fields might be appropriate to what items. Yes, there are some guidelines worked
on by IASA and others, but, I believe that the machinations (and yes, I see it as
being a plot, perhaps resulting merely from the myopic perspective which can be
expected of anyone too close to a problem) of the system, which requires a level of
initiation to create, navigate and ultimately use information. It
inhibits the system from ultimately providing a level of efficiency which
matches the potential efficacy afforded by the available technology.


Karl