Tillett on Jones paper
I’m late on reporting this, but I just noticed it on the weekend. If you read the letters section in Library Resources and Technical Services, you already know about this, but if you don’t, you may not.
A year ago, in October 2005, Ed Jones had a paper called “The FRBR Model as Applied to Continuing Resources” in Library Resources and Technical Services (49: 4). I mentioned it last December.
Barbara Tillett wrote a letter to the editor about it, and the letter was published in the July 2006 LRTS (50: 3). (People call it “Lurts.”) It’s four pages long, and begins with this:
In November I received the October 2005 (49, no. 4) issue of LRTS, and after reading your glowing remarks about the editorial board and how this is a carefully refereed journal, I launched into the article by Ed Jones about the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) titled “The FRBR Model As Applied to Continuing Resources” (p. 227-42). I was disappointed to find so many errors and information presented in a misleading fashion could have so well been addressed through editorial review working with the author. Mr. Jones has an excellent message about our being at a great time of opportunity, and he points to the inconsistencies and varying practices that have evolved over the years for continuing resources through our cataloging rules, rule interpretation, and practices and the MARC format. Using FRBR for such analysis is precisely what that conceptual model is for. I just wish the statements had been clearer about what is really Mr. Jones’ opinion and what FRBR states.
Jones gives a one-page response that begins:
When Peggy Johnson notified me that LRTS had received a letter from Barbara Tillett relating to my paper, my first reaction was excitement that the paper had attracted the attention of so distinguished a colleague. However, after learning of the length of the letter and that I would have a chance to respond, I suspected my reaction might be premature. The reader will probably have reached the same conclusion.
The thing to remember is that if you read Jones’s original article, you should follow up and read Tillett’s letter and Jones’s response.