A) I'm curious to know what benefit, if any, there would be in distinguishing the MARC 245 $a title and 245 $b subtitle in our databse. I don't think that it would be necessarily appropriate to separate the fields, but it has been a pattern that either the main title is not representative of the information, or the subtitle is incredibly long and includes exhibition/curatorial details that are repeated in the 100, 110, and 111 fields. We are striving for consistency, and would appreciate suggestions on a method for showing title hierarchy in the database.
B) The Museum holds many foreign language titles in their collection, and I am unsure of how much transliterated text to inlcude in the records. When the official LC 245 is Japanese, but the title page of the item has a complete English entry, should we limit the database record to English? Make a note in the note field? I cannot predict the methods the collction users will search, but when English is available, it seems reasonable to think that they will know/seek the English access point. One such record example:
MARC 245: Shōwa no Momoyama fukkō : ‡b tōgei kindaika no tenkanten = Modern revival of Momoyama ceramics : turning point toward modernization of ceramics / ‡c shusai Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan ; [henshū (Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan) Kaneko Kenji ... [et al.]]
MARC 710: Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan.
I have temporarily saved this title as Modern revival of Momoyama Ceramics, and the corporate contributor as Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. We want to make a standardized record, but isn't access of primary importance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment