May this result contribute to a better understanding of the problem and to an ultimate revision of the code which will make our rules more rational and purposeful and cataloging a more intelligent and creative pursuit.
~Seymour Lubetzky, 1953, Introduction, Cataloging Rules and Principles
Descriptive cataloging might be characterized as existential cataloging as contrasted with subject cataloging which might be characterized as essential cataloging. In simpler terms, descriptive cataloging tells what the catalog object is by use of bibliographic access points (author and title) as well as the instantiation of its published form (when and who published it, the size of the published form, what is the original authoring language, what edition if it has been revised, is it part of a larger bibliographic unit like a series or collection, etc.), rather than what it is about - its essence or subject which is the provenance of subject cataloging.
Obviously, cataloging rules must be created to deal with the large variety of forms which a title or author can assume and subsume them under a general principle of alphabetical ordering (usually within in a classification scheme like DDC, LOC classification, or faceted colon classifications) for the most common of organizational orders to assist searching and finding of particular works.
In each of the readings by this week’s authors, there is an emphasis on the rules of cataloging particularly those pertaining to the principle of authorship - whether singular or corporate. While not going into the minutiae of each individual rule and its origin as detailed by Pettee and Lubetzky, it clear that rules are necessary elements of any cataloging scheme to achieve efficiency in record creation, uniformity in expression, and interoperability of records between cataloging institutions. Both authors (Lubetzsky even quotes Pettee on this point) make the case for the desirability of making the rules as general and workable as possible to serve the goals of the catalog and, thus, ultimately, the goals of its users.
What also becomes clear from the emphasis on the principle of authorship is the achievement of providing a local clustering of works related to an author entity – whether in the original language, in translation, adaptation into different media, etc. And though not explicitly the focus of the readings, the concept of authority control becomes a very salient topic of analysis and discussion when needing a method to identify authors under different non de plumes such as those used by Stephen King (Richard Bachman/John Swithen/ Beryl Evans) as well as differentiating between authors with the same given names like James Baldwin (19th century children’s author) and James Baldwin (20th century American novelist).
An interesting question arises from this week's readings – How many of these original library cataloging rules were translated into rules used by various online cataloging mechanisms like OPACs, search engines, and other knowledge management systems? Ask yourself, how easy is it to find a specific person with a common name (John Jones) in a product like Google or Bing? Why?
Lubetzky, S. (1953). Is this rule necessary? In Cataloging rules and principles: A critique of the A.L.A. rules for entry and a proposed design for their revision (pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
Lubetzky, S. (1969). The author and title catalog in the library: Its role, function, and objectives. Report 2 of a series on the principles of cataloging. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education.
Pettee, J. (1936). The development of authorship entry and the formulation of authorship rules as found in the Anglo-American code. Library Quarterly, 6(3), 270-290.