Thank you very much Rebecca, Karen and Esme for your replies. It is
really a privilege to be able to ask a question here and get answers
Regarding the DC Creator issue, I probably nave a different
perspective on DC than many here, because my first contact with DC was
not as a librarian but as a content management specialist. In the
content management community DC is widely adopted, but a lot (most) of
the metadata one finds in a CMS is new, born digital and often created
by users directly inside the system itself (think of a blog post).
Also, in a CMS most metadata is generated by users without any
knowledge of cataloging best practices, so the simplicity of
unqualified DC is adequate. These factors make it very desirable to
have a simple Creator attribute, which is often a very important
search criteria for users. That is why I found it strange that LC
chose not to map any tag to Creator.
Now with my librarian hat on, and your explanations, the reasoning is
Thanks a lot!
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Guenther, Rebecca <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The reason we used DC Contributor instead of Creator is because the semantics do not map well to MARC creators/contributors. Creators in MARC can be in 1XX and 7XX; since 1XX is not repeatable, additional creators go in 7XX. Contributors in Dublin Core play a secondary role in the resource ("An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource.") vs. Creator ("An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.").If we simply mapped the name in 1XX to Creator and the name in 7XX to Contributor, these may or may not be correct in terms of semantics. In MARC primary vs. secondary contributions are not what distinguish recording in 1XX vs 7XX, but the particular contribution that was made may be included in the role subfield ($e in textual form or $4 in coded form). Unfortunately we find that many MARC records do not record the role, but that is because of previous cataloging policy, not anything in MARC. Another point is that whether the contribution is primar!
> y or secondary may vary depending on the type of material, so giving the specific contribution may be more useful in the long run (for instance, an illustrator may be considered a secondary contribution in the book world, but if the resource is in a museum it may be considered the primary contribution).
> It might be noted that some time ago (the year that the DC conference was in Florence, I can't remember exactly when that was) the Dublin Core Usage Board (of which I was then a member) attempted to combine creator and contributor (and publisher) to become one DC element (Agent), but implementers objected to it, so the proposal was withdrawn. But that was recognition that the distinction being made might not have been the best way to go. That was also a factor in mapping MARC to DC this way.
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:35:35 -0700
> From: "Cowles, Esme" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Why does the MARC to DC crosswalk refuse to use Creator?
> It looks like it's using Contributor instead. So I'm guessing the sticking point is that it's hard to figure out what Contributors are primary, so it's safer to just punt and put them all in Contributor instead.
> Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
> creating the Internet." -- Al Gore
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote:
>> I am mystified by the discovery that the MARC to DC Crosswalk does not
>> map *any* MARC tag to the DC Creator element!
>> Does anyone know the reasoning behind this strange decision?
>> Luciano Ramalho
>> programador repentista || stand-up programmer
>> Twitter: @luciano
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Senior Networking and Standards Specialist
> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave SE
> Washington, DC 20540
> +1 202 707 5092 (voice)
> +1 202 707 0115 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
programador repentista || stand-up programmer