("If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources
embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at
6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5")
One class example is Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. This compilation of poems
is so well known by its title that it would be used instead of Poems.
Selections. Another example might be James Michener’s Tales of the South
Pacific, which is a collection of sequentially related short stories.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 4:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10 (was: alternative titles and variant access
points)
Trying to follow this thread (which is a rather difficult one for somebody not
cataloging in MARC), it occured to me that it touches upon something which has
puzzled me for some time.
Kevin wrote:
"Nature" is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections
"The Sea" is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections
This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish
them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion
that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known*
by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be
"Nature" and "The sea", since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator,
the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes
considerably more sense to have the following AAPs:
Smith, John. Nature
Smith, John. Sea
and, in another mail on this thread:
That is an incredibly strict reading of the word "resources" in 6.2.2.10. I
*truly* cannot believe that the JSC intended that the first sentence in that
guideline meant that the original title appearing on a compilation could only
be used as the preferred title if there were more than one manifestation! By
following such logic, *any* collection published for the first time would need
to get 6.2.2.10.1-3 treatment, if it were cataloged right after publication;
but if we waited for a while, and it were republished, then we'd look to see if
the titles on the two manifestations were the same, and if so we could then
follow 6.2.2.4-5. Bizarre...
I really believe that 6.2.2.10 is basically meant for things that lack any
collective title (the example in 6.2.2.10.3 seems to imply this), collections
that have generic titles only, or (if being cataloged retrospectively) have
come to be known by generic titles (e.g., generally referenced by generic
titles in trade media, scholarly resources, etc.).
Does anybody know for sure which cases should be treated according to the first
sentence of 6.2.2.10 ("If a compilation of works is known by a title that is
used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the
instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5") and not according to 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3?
My assumption was that usually you'd use the rules under .1-.3, and that the
first sentence refers to fairly rare cases. I further assumed that in these
cases, the compilation needs some long-established title, but wasn't able to
come up with an example. As usual, when you'd need an example in RDA, there
isn't one..
Now Kevin argues, if I understand correctly, that every compilation with a
non-generic, distinct title (i.e. something different from "Three novels" or
"The complete works of ...") should be treated according to the first sentence,
and I can see his point.
So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it
be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
