Re: [RDA-L] I'm taillights
In a word ... WOW! All the best in your future endeavours! Will Bryan be assuming your responsibilities? R. P.s. -- I enjoyed reading your second paragraph. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: Mike Tribby mike.tri...@quality-books.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:34:37 -0600 Subject: [RDA-L] I'm taillights Today is my last day in the QBI Cataloging Bunker. As perceptive readers may have inferred from my postings here and on Autocat, I'm not exactly the most enthusiastic backer of RDA, but before drawing the conclusion that I'm quitting to avoid having to implement RDA, please consider that QBI has already begun to implement it with no real problems so far. In fact, Bryan and the rest of the cataloging staff here will be updating QBI's name authority capabilities and authorization to RDA standards in the near future, and converting the PCIP program to RDA is under consideration. I'm facing imminent knee replacement surgery and at my advance age and crappy physical condition the extensive re-hab I'll be undertaking is not a good fit with my 170-mile per day round trip commute. Besides, I have a 7-month-old puppy who desperately needs to have one of his owners at home everyday so that he doesn't spend most of his puppyhood in his kennel. We still haven't heard from any customers one way or another about preferring RDA records, and I only recently discovered that QBI is hardly the last vendor in OCLC to accommodate RDA, which surprises me a little, but probably shouldn't. I think that for a lot of libraries RDA is a matter of overkill, introducing complications into the process of cataloging titles that may never have more than one manifestation, expression, etc. That being said, and to address James Weinheimer's frequently asked question about a business case for RDA, I don't think there is a business case for it for smaller libraries other than the perceived need to be in step with the national libraries. But for LC (and likely the British Library, LAC, the Australian National Library, etc.), it seems to me the business case is that it will allow them to focus more on important endeavors like classification and subject access rather than the housekeeping aspects of descriptive cataloging. For instance, being allowed to accept inputs like ONIX as is means their professional staffs need not concern themselves with converting ALL CAPS fields and similar matters. The national libraries have as much right as any other institutions to set their own policies, and I don't see how they can go forward in a time of diminishing funding and staffing without making major changes. If cataloging is truly a cooperative effort, records with nonsensical machine-generated contents notes and all caps title fields can be upgraded by other members of the bibliographic utilities that house records. If I were working in an end-user situation (like the persistent dream job of a small liberal arts college library located in a picturesque setting), I would likely make use of Mac and Michael Gorman's creation and resist RDA implementation until faced with a situation where RDA's purported benefits would come to the fore. If the MARC replacement and infrastructure that will magically make RDA fully realizable come to fruition, that might change my outlook, but frankly I don't have much faith in the certainty of that happening anytime soon. How long did it take cataloging software vendors to start utilizing non-filing characters rather than using stopwords, and when will they introduce autofil into most cataloging software packages? Probably about the time the paperless society we've been preparing for since the 1970s arrives. My last helpful suggestion to the list (which I realize might constitute my first helpful suggestion to many list members) is this: your discussions might be more fruitful if you managed to keep in mind that just because other list members disagree with you it doesn't mean they are drooling incompetents or arbitrary obstructionists. They might simply disagree with you. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com Wearing the sensible shoes for one more day, then it's back to Spanish boots, Roman sandals, and brogans (thanks to Jeff Beck, Merle Haggard, and Bo Diddley)
Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 revisions due to delay in RDA
Good afternoon,
I sent to Bernadette only, thinking I sent it to the whole list. I've been
following this practice for at least 5 years.
Title main entry / $c by John Smith ... [et al.].
Note: Statement of responsibility on title-page reads: [List all the
authors]
[Trace all authors]
The note justifies the added entries, and since there are more than
three authors, the bib. record gets a title main entry with the appropriate
statement of responsibility.
...
R.
--
Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742
978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/
bh...@minlib.net
--
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 revisions due to delay in RDA
Elaine Sanchez posted:
* Suspend the limitation of the rule of 3 so we can all feel
empowe=
red to add more than 3 - I think everyone wants this right away!
There is no such limitation in AACR2 or MARC, so long as you justify
the additional entries in a note. The Rule of Three is a floor, not a
ceiling. RDA's floor is *one* entry. Hardly an improvement.
* Allow the use of SMD's in the 245 $h in addition to GMD's, and
cr=
eate a potential list of often-desired, stable terms (DVD, CD, playaway,
et=
c.)
Some are qualifying the GMD, e.g., [videorecording (Blu-ray)],
following the pattern of [text (large print)]. Yes, an AACR2 revision
page standardizing that practice would be very welcome.
An AACR2 revision page should make exact SMDs the practice, not the
option, e.g.,DVD, Blu-ray disc, not videodisc.
And any others. Since many comments indicate we know these are
things we want ...
Write JSC and request AACR2 revision pages for at least the next 18
months. At the top of my list are uniting DVD non cast credits in
508, rather than splitting them between 245/$c and 508; and
simplification of treaty entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
[http://www.slc.bc.ca/]
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Good afternoon, Thomas said, It's the agency's relationship to the user base that dictates what policies and guidelines for catalog records will be followed. then James said, ... that a single author was good enough when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. Sometimes an agency requires something that the rules can not provide. There are instances whereby tracing ALL names are important to the said agency. I have had to create a work-around so that I comply to rules, but give them what they want. Example: a technical report with four authors. Title main entry: [title] / $c by [author no. one] ... [et al.]. Note: Statement of responsibility on t.p. reads, [all four authors]. Trace all four authors as added entries. That way, the tracings are justified from the descriptive cataloging note. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:54:55 +0200 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote: snip So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that a single author is good enough when there are more than three, it is OK. However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless of number), that is now a problem? On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty. In the future, regardless of whether the restrictive option allowed in RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and expectations. Those agencies that use the record as is, in its pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes. /snip That was what AACR2 determined: that a single author was good enough when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. In normal standards, they mandate minimums and you can do more. When cataloging, lots of catalogers made additional access points. I have too. Unfortunately, according to AACR2, that goes outside the standard because AACR2 is not so much a standard as much as it creates a template, as RDA does in a lot of ways as well. The rule of three could be improved and turned into a real rule of three by turning it into a minimal standard: trace at least the first three authors. This is simple, easy to teach and even adds access because we would trace three authors when there are four or more, while if somebody added the fourth, *it would still follow the standard*. This is the concern that I have, here is an item with 3 authors and 2 editors, and all I have to do is trace the first one and *still be in the standard*. That is going the wrong way! I keep quoting myself, but I hate to repeat everything. I talk about the same issues in my last podcast: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html [http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html] -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ [http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/] Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ [http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/]
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Here, here! ... well said. R. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: Lasater, Mary Charles mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:25:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR I also agree. Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA implementation. Perhaps this message would be an appropriate response. That position paper seems oblivious to the current ‘real’ environment. Mary Charles Lasater Authorities Coordinator Vanderbilt University From:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf OfGuy Vernon Frost Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR I concur… very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to me it’s going in the wrong direction too. Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing Associate Professor of Library Science Odum Library, Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0150 Depository 0125 229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862 gfr...@valdosta.edu [mailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu] From:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf OfBillie Hackney Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged. Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath. It desperately needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school students, easier for management to understand. Instead, it seems to me that the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time. It seems to me that our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground. This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty years -- not that of my employer. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] actual RDA
Mike, et al., Well said and well put. With budgets for FY 2012 being written, discussed (read:argued) there will be some public libraries, some not small, that will not be able to afford the paper copy! I wish I were being an alarmist about that comment; but alas, it is the way it is. R. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- I don't think smaller libraries and cataloging operations were targeted for disenfranchisement by the backers of RDA, but I do think that to varying degrees disenfranchisement will result. I would be interested in hearing what remedies--other than buy the printed version and hope--RDA enthusiasts would offer us. It seems obvious that in the planning and creating of RDA the emphasis would be on getting it right rather than planning for the have-nots who will always exist regardless of what initiative is undertaken. If all cataloging matters were held up until all cataloging agencies were in a position to participate fully, no initiatives could ever be successfully undertaken. When we get to the end of the adoption consideration process, it will be interesting to see what suggestions are made for non-adopters, if any are. So far it seems to pretty much be: Go fish. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Reprint cataloging
Hi Pat, Please copy and paste the 773 (and the 580 if the 1st indicator on the 773 is 1). I worked on a two-year project cataloging reprints and analytics; and, 15 years later, they are still part of my workflow. R. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: Pat Sayre McCoy p...@uchicago.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:18:45 -0600 Subject: [RDA-L] Reprint cataloging Hi all, Does anyone feel they understand the linking field structure for a reprint well enough to review one I have? I'm not sure I'm phrasing the note in the 775 correctly and would like another opinion. It's no. 73 in the Save file. Pat Patricia Sayre McCoy 1121 E. 60th Street Head, Law Cataloging Serials Chicago, IL 60637 D'Angelo Law Library773-702-9620 University of Chicago p...@uchicago.edu
Re: [RDA-L] New to list
Hi Maxine! Long-time-no-chat. I concur with what you said; as well as everyone else's comments set forth in this thread! We've certainly discussed some of this in Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries at ALA. It it is true that we've been cataloging with AACR2 ... some of us since 1981. The concept of learning something new is not the issue, trying to apply the new concepts is another matter. It is not uncommon for me to sit at my desk, read and try to apply the rules, and say (or so I've been told I say), Huh?, [expletive], what?, [another expletive], and so forth. Best. R. -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ bh...@minlib.net -- -Original Message- From: MSHERMAN msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:52:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New to list No, you are definitely not alone. I consider myself pretty intelligent, and I've taken many workshops on FRBR, RDA, etc. Every time I think I figured it out, I've found something that doesn't fit what I thought I understood. Sigh. Maxine Sherman Cataloger Cuyahoga County Public Library Administrative Offices 2111 Snow Road / Parma, OH 44134-2728 p 216.749.9378 / f 216.749.9445 msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org www.cuyahogalibrary.org [http://www.cuyahogalibrary.org/] -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jackie Johnson Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] New to list Hi all I am new to the list. I am just wondering whether anyone else is struggling as I am with RDA. I am finding the terminology rather impenetrable and the descriptions very convoluted. Would be good to know I am not the only one, or is it a sign of my age and my 32-year acquaintance with AACR2? Regards, Jackie Johnson Metadata Coordinator Library Services University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT 0121-414-2767 j.john...@bham.ac.uk
Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft
Terri, Greta, et al., Terri, we have discussed your situation before, and I brought it up in the CC:DA meetings. Believe me, you are not alone in this when it comes to small and medium libraries. I know several librarians who not only print-out things from their home computer on their time, but read library-related emails at home because their budget is restricted, or they are working the reference desk part-time ... AND have to call a circ. person to sit at the desk whilst they go to the WC. As the PLA representative to CC:DA, I must say that when public library technical service librarians heard about AACR3, I had lots of discussion as there was general interest. Now, with RDA, I get glazed-over looks. It is NOT because they are unintelligent, rigid, or any of those negative connotations. Lack of time to learn and implement something new is ... well, let us say that their plates need to be serving platter-sized. BTW, within the last year, I may have had two personal inquiries regarding RDA. My question is ... why only two? Fortunately, I am seeing some active discussion on this list. Most small and medium-sized public libraries do not do their own cataloging; it is done by networks, whose budgets are smaller than some of the small libraries. They are trim and lean in their staff; but, trim is one thing -- emaciated is another. Within networks, there is a specific budget based on library size. Some libraries have 250,000 volumes, while some have 2,500. Dealing with RDA training and implementation is just as important as purchasing subscriptions for electronic journals, periodicals, etc. Sad, but true -- 'tis the squeaky wheel that gets the grease ... There are several public libraries that I know of in my state of Massachusetts who are dept. heads who will admit to me that they don't know how to catalog any longer -- perhaps safe to say, I haven't cataloged in 10 years. I am not going to get into the debate of paper vs. electronic format for RDA. It has been discussed here quite a bit. my My personal preference is that I can edit and annotate freely (you should see my copy of AACR2 and especially the LCRIs!) my personal paper copy; I prefer using the schedules for paper when classifying using LC; and electronic Dewey when classifying using DDC. I learned by using paper; so is then paper, therefore, what I am used to? People use tools differently to their effectiveness and efficiency. I assure you, the biggest factor to these public libraries using RDA will be price. Rob Hall. PLA rep. to CC:DA -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Original Message- From: Teresa Knapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:32:08 + Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft Dear All, Speaking as a small institution, and as a participant on the RDA Taskforce, I deeply appreciate all the work, and all the concern that is being shown for us. But, let me give you an idea of what were up against. I can't print out the draft, as we can't afford to have me do so. We can't afford the print cartridges and we can't afford the paper. At this point, I'm hoping I still have a job in the next fiscal year. As much as my director would fight for me and the rest of us, including all the PT folks who keep us running, we are taking huge financial cuts from not only the state, but the county. At the moment we have a county Board of Supervisors, that actually believes that we are a huge waste of money. I know that it is pretty grim for everyone right now, but there is no way that we could afford anything new, if I can't even print out the draft. Quite honestly, I'd rather have my job, then a new cataloging code. Now, that said, we're librarians. We know better than anyone else, except for school teachers, how to suck it up, and do more with less and less. I know with enough brainstorming, we can figure out how to make this work for everyone. I say this for myself and for everyone else. Thanks for listening, I've been ranting a lot lately, mostly to my poor husband, just thought I would share. Teri Frick Orange County Public Library Orange, VA We are librarians, and therefore the elect of God. To read is human, to catalogue divine. --from Dewey Death by Charity Black Stock. Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:13:34 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Large institutions may be able to afford such a cataloging interface. How long will it take our local systems to program such a thing? Or maybe it will be OCLC that does it and we'll all catalog in OCLC. Will the subscription price for RDA be added to either of those products on top of what we pay already? Ok, us large institutions will do whatever we're told (which will be whatever
Re: Fictitious characters as authors
Good afternoon all,
Thank you for your email. We have been discussing this issue at our
ALA/PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries discussion group since the
topic first appeared on the OCLC cataloging list several months ago. We
also found out that OLAC had presented this very issue a few years ago (
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/sept04.html#capc
), but I believe they are not going to pursue it. I am the PLA Liaison to
CC:DA and I am definitely going to bring this up just as soon as RDA pt. 2
is available for comment. Please, also, feel free to comment on this list
when pt. 2 does become available.
[And now, for a not-too shameless plug]: any of you public library
catalogers who are going to Annual in New Orleans and want to be involved
in the Cataloging Needs of Public Library discussion group, please attend.
We usually meet on Sun. morning, and Mon. afternoon, and welcome discussion!
Enjoy the weekend.
Robert.
--
Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742
978-318-3342 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordnet.org/library/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:46:41 -0800
Subject: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
AACR2 makes a distinction between pseudonyms (which may as literary
identities be used as prime entry AACR2 22.B2), and fictitious
characters which may not be so used. It seems to me that if one does
not know the name of the human author, the name of the fictitious
character is as much a pseudonym as any other, and is needed to bring
together the works of a single bibliographic identity, whether that
identity is presented as a mouse or not.
I hope those drafting the next portion of RDA will take this into
consideration.
Joel Hahn has given his permission to forward the following to the
list, which I think makes an important distinction:
The Archy Mehitabel books are clearly labeled as by Don Marquis.
There is no question as to who the real-world author is, as it's
clearly stated on the item itself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Marquis.
In AACR2, there is an example of an autobiography of Alice Toklas,
Gertrude Stein's secretary, which is known to have been *actually*
written
by Gertrude Stein about herself. Therefore, the main entry is under
Stein.
In AACR2, there is an example of a book written by Winnie-the-Pooh,
which is known to have *actually* been written by A.A. Milne, and is
not a
case of Milne intending to create a pseudonym with a separate
bibliographic identity. Therefore, the main entry is under Milne.
The Geronimo Stilton books (of which I have one in front of me, as it
just arrived today), say Text by Geronimo Stilton, Original title:
{original title in Italian}, Cover by Giuseppe Ferrario, Illustrations
by Larry Keys, Ratterto Rattonchi, and Chiara Sacchi, etc. The
copyright statement is Copyright (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A.,
Via del Carmine 5, 15033 Casale Monferrato (AL), Italia; English
translation (C) 2005 by Edizioni Piemme S.p.A. The books are all told
from the first person point of view.
Unlike the case of Archy Mehibatel, where the real author is stated
on the work itself, or the Winnie-the-Pooh case, where the true author
is well known, the publisher itself has intentionally obfuscated the
name(s) of the real author(s); they label Geronimo Stilton as the
author. Since this obviously cannot be ... , and there is no known
author that can be used instead, the rules call for main entry under
title, which is why LC has cataloged them that way. (If Archy
Mehibatel was instead labeled by the publisher as by Archy, a
cockroach, and no one knew or could readily determine that it was
really by Don Marquis, then it would be the same situation as Geronimo
Stilton.)
However, because that treatment prevents collocation on the shelf of a
popular fiction series, and prevents catalog access by one of the more
obvious access points from the point of view of the target audience
of this particular series, and thus may significantly inhibit public
service, that is not considered a desirable situation by many
libraries, even if it does strictly follow the rules. Because the
rules also allow for pseudonyms such as Mark Twain, or the recently
discussed Jean Plaidy) to be used as main entries, even if the
author's real name is known (again, in order to enable useful customer
service), if the pseudonym constitutes a separate bibliographic
identity from the author's own, there is some precedent for using
names of people who do not and have never existed, it is perhaps not
all that much of a stretch to treat Stilton as a shared pseudonym of
the publisher's otherwise anonymous stable of writers, much like
Franklin W. Dixon or Carolyn Keene are, with the exception that the
