As I understand RDA, editors are not considered a creators. Is this correct?
If so, title access point (main entries, for lack of a better term), are the entity one would create a "book number from. Helen E. Gbala Supervisor Cataloging/Processing College of DuPage Library 630-942-2663 gba...@cod.edu Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1961! -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 12:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry Because the rule of three from AACR2 is gone, it doesn't matter how many creators there are for a work. In RDA the authorized access point for a work is the combination of the first named or prominently named creator and the preferred title for the work. Hence: AACR2 245 00 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A ... [et al.]. 700 1_ $a Author A. RDA 100 1_ $a Author A. 245 10 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A, B, C, and D. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Jack Wu wrote: > Whether main entry idea has passed its time I leave for others more > knowledgeable to debate on. In the 1960s one of > my library school teachers proposed we just sidestep this whole issue of > authorship and make title the main entry. > As far as I can remember, in the case of diffused authorship, in > AACR1 editors are chosen where AACR2 would choose > the title. And if we agree in the case of editor that it cannot be main entry > in either AACR2 or RDA, in what > instances then would AACR2 and RDA be different when main entry is considered > in the sequential MARC environment? > > Jack > > Jack Wu > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > >>> James Weinheimer <weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> 10/8/2012 5:30 AM >>> > On 08/10/2012 09:38, Keith Trickey wrote: > <snip> > Point of order! "Main entry" was adopted by AACR2 - Eric Hunter argued > against it at a JSC meeting in > the 1970s in York and was timed out. It goes back to catalogue card > days - when full bibliographic data > was entered on the "main entry card" and the other cards relating to > that item were listed on the back > of that card. The concept of "main entry" belongs to the Cutter > shortage era when access was limited > (restrictions of the 5 x 3 card and staff to catalogue items and the > bulking out of catalogues) and the > researcher was expected to understand the foibles of the cataloguer > when engaged in a search for an > item. > > The cataloguer's arrogance is part of the "main entry" concept. The searcher > approaches with catalogue with > whatever information they have - could be author or title or words from title > etc. For the searcher the > information they use to access the item identifies their "main entry" which > may be at variance with what > erudite cataloguers with a head full of RDA thinks! > > Michael Gorman (Our singular strengths p.170 - Filing) illustrates this > beautifully! > > </snip> > > I don't know if it is arrogance so much as not reconsidering what you are > doing when there has been a fundamental > change in technology. There is a difference between main entry and the need > to come up with a *single* main entry. > This is also called "creator" and "contributor". In a resource with two > authors of equal prominence and status, why > should the first one be chosen over the second one, such as Masters and > Johnson? As Keith mentions, in a card (or > printed book) catalog, a single main entry was a very natural outgrowth of > how the card catalog functions, but in > the computer world, having to choose a single main entry is an anachronism. > In MARC format, the 1xx field could > easily be made repeatable, but doing so would have consequences for the rest > of the format, for instance, in > analytic added entries, where the 7xx would have to handle more than one main > entry. This has been discussed at > length on other lists; here is one of my posts to NGC4LIB > http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/06/re-are-marc-subfields-really-useful_07.html > > Nevertheless, there needs to be a difference from creators vs. contributors. > This is one part of FRBR that I have > actually liked: I cannot see how a single main entry makes much sense in an > FRBR system: there are names attached to > the work, or the expression, or the manifestation, even to the item if we > wanted. It makes no sense to limit any of > them to a single instance. Not having to determine a single main entry would > make the job of the cataloger easier, > make cataloger training simpler, with no loss of access to the public. > > Mac and I have differed on this a number of times. > > -- > James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com > First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ > Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ > Cataloging Matters Podcasts > http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > > >
