Note, however, that this is an exception to RDA 6.27.1.3, Collaborative Works, and only applies to that instruction, which gives guidance for collaboratively produced motion pictures. This of course covers most of them, but a motion picture wholly created by one person, family, or corporate body falls under 6.27.1.2, and the work is named by giving the authorized access point for the creator followed by the preferred title of the film (that is, the creator would be recorded in 1XX of the bibliographic record). This would apply, for example, to an amateur film created by a single person; or to a film created by a single corporate body that falls under 19.2.1.1.1 (e.g. an annual report produced as a film). Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry Thanks Adam for confirming this exception. Jack >>> "Adam L. Schiff" >>> <asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> 10/8/2012 2:43 >>> PM >>> Yes, the authorized access point for motion pictures and other moving image works is an exception and is constructed of the title only. Serials are not always an exception. If a creator is responsible for all issues of a serial, it would be named using the creator combined with the title. This of course is already the current practice in AACR2, such as when you have a directory or annual report of a corporate body or a serial always written by the same person (e.g. Roger Ebert's movie yearbook). Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Jack Wu wrote: > Yes, I do remember now. This is a change on account of the rule of three. In > RDA is there an exception or > another rule that governs the entry under title for video recordings, > serials... > Thanks, > > Jack > > Jack Wu > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > >>> "Adam L. Schiff" > >>> <asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> 10/8/2012 > >>> 1:27 PM >>> > 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 > > > > > > > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
