headers
John G. Marr | 1 Jun 01:58
Picon

Re: Rule of three

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:

> From: Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...>
> Subject: Re: [ACAT] Rule of three
> To: AUTOCAT@...
> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 11:12 AM
> James W: "I personally have no problem with maintaining the rule of
> three. 

> *Increasing it to more authors would be highly counterproductive in the
> current economic environment

> If they wanted to change the rule of three from tracing the first to
> tracing the first three authors, I could go along with it. 

 People, please!  Could we not simply live with a softening of the "Rule of Three", no matter what the
"Scriptures" demand?  Simply accept an informal "Rule of Three" as an expedient guideline and trace more
if you can or want to. This situation well illustrates the absolute stupidity of writing "black or white"
rules in stone! 

Cheers!

John G. Marr
PO Box 702
Tijeras, NM 87059
jmarr@...
jmarr@...

***********************************************************************
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Karen Weaver | 1 Jun 03:05
Picon

Re: Rule of three

As a dept manager, is that how you will instruct your dept staff as well,
and prepare documentation for staff ?
i.e. do x, y , and z if you have the time and if you feel like it?

:-)  ahhhhh what a wonderful world this would be !

Karen Weaver, MLS, Adjunct Faculty, Cataloging & Classification, The iSchool
at Drexel University, Philadephia PA email:
karen.weaver@.../ Electronic Resources Statistician,
Duquesne University, Gumberg Library
Pittsburgh PA email: weaverk@...

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:58 PM, John G. Marr <jmarr@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...>
> > Subject: Re: [ACAT] Rule of three
> > To: AUTOCAT@...
> > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 11:12 AM
> > James W: "I personally have no problem with maintaining the rule of
> > three.
>
> > *Increasing it to more authors would be highly counterproductive in the
> > current economic environment
>
> > If they wanted to change the rule of three from tracing the first to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
J. McRee Elrod | 1 Jun 04:19
Picon

Re: Rule of three

John Marr said:

> People, please!  Could we not simply live with a softening of the
>"Rule of Three", no matter what the "Scriptures" demand?  Simply
>accept an informal "Rule of Three" as an expedient guideline and
>trace more if you can or want to. This situation well illustrates the
>absolute stupidity of writing "black or white" rules in stone!

Who are you and what have you done with the John Marr with whom I love  
to debate?  Where is the John Marr who defends any rule or LCRI, no
matter how stupid, on the grounds that it creates uniformity among
records in the (inter)national database?  The number of authors to be
traced a matter of whim?

Hand me the smelling salts.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@...)
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************

AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners:             autocat-request@...
Search AUTOCAT archives:  http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
  By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright

***********************************************************************
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Karen Weaver | 1 Jun 04:52
Picon

Re: Rule of three

After you find the smelilng salts for Mac, make sure you correctly cite
whoever wrote the quote below, that you have ascribed to me incorrectly
below.
See why we need more than 3 rules...  have fun, Karen W. / Drexel/Duquesne

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:58 PM, John G. Marr <jmarr@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...>
> > Subject: Re: [ACAT] Rule of three
> > To: AUTOCAT@...
> > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 11:12 AM
> > James W: "I personally have no problem with maintaining the rule of
> > three.
>
> > *Increasing it to more authors would be highly counterproductive in the
> > current economic environment
>
> > If they wanted to change the rule of three from tracing the first to
> > tracing the first three authors, I could go along with it.
>
>  People, please!  Could we not simply live with a softening of the "Rule of
> Three", no matter what the "Scriptures" demand?  Simply accept an informal
> "Rule of Three" as an expedient guideline and trace more if you can or want
> to. This situation well illustrates the absolute stupidity of writing "black
> or white" rules in stone!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Marr | 1 Jun 06:50
Picon

Re: Rule of three

John G. Marr
PO Box 702
Tijeras, NM 87059
jmarr@...
jmarr@...

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, J. McRee Elrod <mac@...> wrote:

>  Where is the John Marr who defends any rule or LCRI, no
> matter how stupid

 Not exactly. I only defend the need to understand one another, in the sense that current rules help (and
should be followed for that reason). I can hardly defend the rules themselves if they are not subject to
constant review and revision. Note that the Rule of Three is one of those which does not affect "understanding."

> on the grounds that it creates uniformity among records in the (inter)national database?

 Uniformity is desirable in "master" records "in the (inter)national database to reduce the amount of work
required of individuals using them and to facilitate understanding, comprehension and collaboration.
The "Rule of Three" has served its purpose and is an effective guideline for standardization, but of a
practice (providing data access points) that has locally diverse significance.  It should not be
looked upon as a constraint but as a cogent possibility where brevity is preferred, and such an approach is
certainly preferred to a mandate either way ("black or white").

 50% of all catatalogers [and/or their managers) would probably object to being told to either always limit
to the Three or always trace every darned name, so why not allow flexibility?  It will not damage the
database (look where it has been, for example) either way.  The things that should receive "rules"
attention are the items wherein misunderstandings of the actual [or expressed] data can occur, not the
extent to which universally understandable data is developed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Marr | 1 Jun 07:17
Picon

Re: Rule of three

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:

> make sure you correctly
> cite
> whoever wrote the quote below,
> that you have ascribed to me incorrectly below.
> See why we need more than 3
> rules...  have fun, Karen W. / Drexel/Duquesne

Here is the post from you exactly as my e-mail program displayed it. Was only the last line yours and the rest
your quote from James W. (where are the quotation marks closed?)?:

> James W: "I personally have no problem with maintaining the rule of
> three. *Increasing
> it to more authors would be highly counterproductive in the current
> economic
> environment, which* should focus our attention on economizing our time > for
> each record instead of increasing the amount of work. If they wanted to
> change the rule of three from tracing the first to tracing the first
> three
> authors, I could go along with it. It would only be an extension of
> what we
> do now and would not necessarily be that much extra work compared to
> adding
> lots of additional authors, with all of the time for authority work.

> *That seems to totally contradict what your wrote in the previous
> thread,
> and have reposted on a new thread here,  but ok.-??*
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Karen Weaver | 1 Jun 08:33
Picon

Re: Rule of three

Do we need to spend 2 hours on emails about cleaning up what you quote and
want to pull out and re-post on Autocat?
I can go back and post too if you want me to, thanks, but maybe everyone
could just read what they are posting and putting the correct cites and
quotes when poking fun and asking for smelling salts.  see why cataloging
staff shouldn't waste their time any more than they have to  :-)

Thanks John,
Karen Weaver

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:27 AM, John G. Marr <jmarr@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:
> > if you want to poke fun, make sure you poke the correct source's
> > quotes.
>
> Karen:
>
>  I had no intention to "poke fun", so you need not ascribe it to me.
>
> >   Autocat good cop bad cops are always telling people to clean up their
> > post messages so that would be helpful in the future esp when other
> > peoples names are on them.
>
>  At least I abstracted what you posted, which practice is rather rare it
> seems.  It appears my abstraction may have included only what you quoted
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Weinheimer | 1 Jun 09:08

Re: Rule of three

On Sun, 31 May 2009 13:12:19 -0400, Karen Weaver <melvil4u@...> wrote:

>James W: "I personally have no problem with maintaining the rule of
>three. *Increasing
>it to more authors would be highly counterproductive in the current economic
>environment, which* should focus our attention on economizing our time for
>each record instead of increasing the amount of work. If they wanted to
>change the rule of three from tracing the first to tracing the first three
>authors, I could go along with it. It would only be an extension of what we
>do now and would not necessarily be that much extra work compared to adding
>lots of additional authors, with all of the time for authority work.
>
>*That seems to totally contradict what your wrote in the previous thread,
>and have reposted on a new thread here,  but ok.-??*

If I have contradicted myself, I apologise and readily accept it, but I
don't see a contradiction here. Perhaps you could point it out.

In the one thread, I maintain that the *single* main entry is an obsolete
practice, based on the card catalog. This means that the 1xx field could
easily be made repeatable and therefore, we would not have to bust our
brains trying to determine whether something gets a 1xx and which of the
various entities it would be. I don't have to tell members of AUTOCAT that
this can be extremely difficult. I went to some pains to explain this, but
perhaps I did not make myself clear. Therefore, for a book by Masters and
Johnson, both would get 100 fields.

I realize this makes no sense in the card catalog, and since MARC is based
on cards, this is not allowed. This limitation of the cards should not limit
us today. My argument is to, once and for all, finally, get rid of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
John Williams | 1 Jun 10:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: DVD with multiple independent videos

You can watch the Berlin film at:

http://www.archive.org/details/BerlinSymphonyofaGreatCity

Well worth a viewing.

John Williams
Technical Services Librarian
Robert H. Evans Library
Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center
via Belmeloro 11, 40126 Bologna, Italy
Tel.: 0512917811 - Fax: 051266985 - http://www.jhubc.it

Mark Braden wrote
> first in its genre) and _Berlin, die Symphonie der 
> Grosstadt_, also an experimental film but a very different content.
> 

***********************************************************************

AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners:             autocat-request@...
Search AUTOCAT archives:  http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
  By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright

***********************************************************************
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Corrigan, Lynn | 1 Jun 11:10
Picon
Picon

Re: DVD with multiple independent videos

Jeffrey

We have lots of these, and the nature of our institution means that the users are interested in the
production details of individual films.

So, we use analytic records extensively, linking from a parent which has a very brief 505 Contents to child
records which contain full records for each title.

If your LMS has this functionality, it creates a nice clean display for the user. 

You can see an example here http://nuin.napier.ac.uk/F/?func=direct&doc_number=002052397&local_base=NAP01

Regards

Lynn

Lynn Corrigan
Information Systems Manager
Edinburgh Napier University
Craiglockhart Campus
Edinburgh EH14 1DJ
 
e: l.corrigan@...
t: 0131 455 4265

-----Original Message-----
From: AUTOCAT [mailto:AUTOCAT@...] On Behalf Of Jeff Ring
Sent: 29 May 2009 18:11
To: AUTOCAT@...
Subject: [ACAT] DVD with multiple independent videos
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1001 comments |

Gmane