Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Database Questions
Some patterns have started to develop in the contributor decisions we must make in cataloging the art books, especially concerning translators, contributors, and essayists. Marc and I were wondering how to best deal with these situations in the new database. As it stands now, there is a single Author field, a single Contributor field, and a single Editor field. Perhaps we could talk about a unnamed personal name or corporate conributor field to add to the record with a drop-down menu to select contributor type. This way, additional creators of content could be added, be searchable, and have their own record in the "parties" module. If done with a standard 700 note, I think they might lack an access point of their own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that the template needs to be expanded to accommodate situations where there may be multiple contributors, or editors, or translators, etc.
In labeling the field, though, I suggest keeping the field name somewhat specific, rather than not naming it at all. "Contributor" seems generic enough to address many roles.
Since the distinction between authors, contributors, and editors is already established, I recommend staying with that.
Detail is easy to take out of a record, but if it is not there in the first place, it is very difficult to add in. So if we know the person is a contributor, author, or editor, let's stay with that direction.
Post a Comment