[DCRM-L] 6JSC/LC/32: Revision to instructions for devised titles in RDA 2.3.2.11

[Mascaro,Michelle J]

Francis brings up an interesting point about redundancy between devised title proper and devised title of work.

I do not think that option B is completely crazy.  There is merit to keeping title proper strictly as a transcription field for identification of manifestations.  (As a case in point…at my institution, we have had several discussions about devising titles for digital images that lack formal titles; with some arguing we are misrepresenting the object by supplying a title.  In the end, the uselessness of having thousands of images titled “untitled” swayed everyone to the necessity of devising titles.)

The difficulty lies in that we have a  tradition of treating the title proper as the title.  A lot of our current systems do not properly handle situations where the title proper and  preferred title differ. (We periodically get requests from Reference to turn off 130s and 240s because they confuse patrons.)   For that reason, I am not quite ready to support making the tittle proper a field that could potentially be empty and am leaning slightly towards option A.


Michelle Mascaro
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Special Collections Cataloger and Coordinator, Cataloging Services
University Libraries
The University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-1712
Bierce Library Office: 330-972-2446
Archival Services Office: 330-972-6830
http://www.uakron.edu/libraries/

[UAOPU_Horiz]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150814/053acc56/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2561 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150814/053acc56/attachment-0001.png>