> Are AACR2 or MARC major impediments to cataloging of art and
> photographic images (i.e., do not convey many intrinsic/extrinsic
> qualities of the image)?
AACR is mainly geared to printed materials though there are chapters for graphic materials and realia. If you look at records from LC's Prints & Photographs division, they fit pretty well in that world. You can check the graphic materials manual by Elizabeth Betz Parker for more cataloging instructions. MARC is not explicitly or intrinsically hard on cataloging of images but you should remember that it is merely (that's over simplifying) a data structure for communicating records you've constructed according to some rules. Some libraries have used it for all of their records, with the Morgan Library being the most significant example other than LC. cf http://corsair.morganlibrary.org/
> If an image is not digital, would you prefer to catalog it
> using MARC or another system? Why?
The digital nature of an image does not particularly affect the (un)ease of using MARC for transmitting the metadata.
> 3. Which thesaurus of art terms do you hope might supplant
> LC subject headings in a switch to Dublin Core (or another system)?
No single thesaurus can probably answer all of your needs for terminology. AAT has more detailed terms, and just more terms. LC is far more receptive to candidate terminology now than it was in the past. The Getty vocabulary folks announced at VRA this past week that they plan on being more receptive to candidate terms after the vocabularies (AAT, ULAN, TGN) have been migrated to new software later this year. Nothing probably beats ICONCLASS for western iconography but it is not explicitly a thesaurus. Using a variety of thesauri of course points out the need for keeping track of which vocabulary is being used.
The folks in the OCLC Research Office have been working on a version of LCSH terminology in a more faceted manner. This version is called FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) and breaks down the topic, geography, chronology, and form/genre into separate fields. Some of the fields work pretty well on their own, some don't. cf http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/fast/
> Do you think MARC will continue to be used for art and
> photographic collection access? Under what conditions?
As a data structure for transmitting metadata, MARC is likely to be used with other transmission languages and the interface at the moment which will allow cross-pollination is probably XML-based. One's basic considerations for how to transmit is probably dependent on your overall software/hardware environment. If you're in a library with a MARC integrated system, you're likely to use MARC directly or indirectly. If you're in another environment, you might not. It's all about mapping and interface, and content.
If you have any followup questions, do not hesitate to ask.
Sherman Clarke, NYU Libraries - [log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]
