the @#$%^&*(*&^%$#@ contributor

[Deborah J. Leslie]

For the record, even though I was speaking out in favor of Author of
contribution, I think just Contributor is fine too, and infinitely more
aesthetically pleasing. I don't have strong feelings on the addition of the
8 syllables or not. --DJL

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Russell [mailto:prussell at library.berkeley.edu]
Sent: 01 February 2000 2:10 PM
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu; dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: the @#$%^&*(*&^%$#@ contributor


Hi all:

It seems to me that Juliet has summed things up pretty accurately.  I think
we need to leave both term and scope note as is (as voted on in San
Antonio).  No matter what qualifying phrase, slightly modified term, etc.,
is adopted somebody is going to be unhappy.  In the present MARC list there
are many terms to fit a variety of situations, and a variety of catalogers.
Just because they don't appear in the Rare Book List doesn't mean that Rare
books Catalogers (or anybody else for that matter) can't use them or
consider them. 

Yes, there are some problems, one of which is that some of us special
collections catalogers work for libraries which, contrary to LC/MARC
attitude, inflexibly insist that everyone follow precisely LC/MARC policy,
whatever that is (its not always too clear!)  I work for such a library,
and consequently have little use for relators such as &*#@& "Contributor,"
because the powers that be say NO.  BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS not a local
policy situation, but what Juliet says:

	" I guess finally my attitude is rather like that of people in the
pro-choice camp: if you don't want to use it, or it doesn't seem helpful to
your target audience, don't use it, but leave those of us who want it or
need it alone."

I am quite glad to do that, and I think the  term and scope note adopted in
San Antonio do just that.  

Patrick