Date:         Sun, 4 May 2003 19:00:41 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: back to names
Comments: To: Metadata List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 06:16  PM, Robin Wendler wrote:

> As Rebecca pointed out, if you do not operate in an Anglo-American
> Cataloging Rules environment, you do not have to construct your names
> this
> way. MODS does not care. AACR2 formulates them like this. Other rule
> sets
> will formulate them differently, or in most cases, not at all.
>
> I wouldn't get hung up on this example, if I were you. Each community
> will determine what constitutes a legitimate name according to its own
> rules.
> Botanists have their conventions, STM has its conventions, libraries
> have
> theirs. Of course, they might all be wrong... ;-)

Thanks for the explanation Robin (honestly, I learn a lot from this
list!).  But might it present the best of both worlds to have something
like:

      <name type="corporate">
         <namePart>Roustabouts</namePart>
         <description authority="whatever">Musical group</description>
      </name>

In other words, aren't the catalog rules in question here saying to
someone creating a record "if you have a musical group, append that
description to the name and place it in parentheses"?  If that's the
case, then this is similar to the issue of gmd stuff like "sound
recording" that gets associated with the title, which would seem to
call for a similar solution; right?  I'm not sure the authority
attribute is where you would correctly put the cataloguing rules, but
my basic point is that "musical group" in this context is a description.

I realize that I don't have to code records that I create this way, but
we all have to live in a universe of records that others create too.
Is there any reason why someone would object to my example above?

Bruce