Heidrun said:
But I must also say that this is a very small problem compared to other
challenges ...
You list interesting challenges, but I still think "language of the
catalogue" inclusions is a major barrier to record exchange. Whether
a corporate body is 110 or 710 has little effect on either interfiling
or exchange of records.
1. The criteria for deciding when a corporate body gets main entry
are totally different according to our rules ...
There have also been such changes within the Anglo-American tradition,
e.g., from 110 2 $aChemical Society. 245 10 $aJournal of the Chemical
Society. to 245 00 $aJournal of the Chemical Society. 710 2
$aChemical Society. But what does that effect, other then Cutter?
The item can be searched by either the society or title under both
formulations. (Libraries which shelved serials alphabetically rather
than by class number had some reshelving to do.)
I remember a French cataloguer telling me at an IFLA meeting,
"Corporations don't write books, people do". I can appreciate the
thought, but corporate entry for some legal, religious, procedings,
and administrative materials seems appropriate to me.
The RDA major corporate body entry change from AACR2 is that treaties
amongst more than three countries, formally under title, will now be
under first country (or one country if between one country and
several). This change will also have little effect on access.
2. Many congresses which are viewed as corporate bodies according to
AACR2/RDA have not been viewed as such according to RAK.
Again, whether the conference is 111, or the society is 710, has
little effect on access, or interoperability of RDA and legacy
records.
3. The concept of separate bibliographic identities is completely
alien to our cataloging tradition.
This I can appreciate. It is a matter of uniting or splitting works of
an author. A EURIGRI which said one authority per author would be
fine with me. One difficulty with separate bibliographic identities
is that a title published under one identity may be republished under
the other; works by James Morris were republished as by Jan Morris,
leading to the combining of the two bibliographic identities. Titles
may also be republished with a compound statement of responsibility,
e.g., "Anne Rice writing as Anne Rampling".
I applauded the earlier change from "Clemens, Samual" to "Twain,
Mark"; the form chosen should be the one most often appearing on
resources.
4. RAK was, I'd argue, truly international in that it used
geographical names in their original language.
This might the the subject of another EURIGRI. The Anglo practice is
parochial and assumes monolingualism. For bilingual Canada, we put
the alternate form in 910, but standardization under original form of
name would be good.
"Florenz" ist still not truly RDA, because for this it would have to
be "Florenz (Italien)".
With Londons in England and Ontario, Vancouvers in British Columbia
and Washington State, etc., etc., etc., we want jurisdiction in
entries and provided in imprints where lacking on the item. Here I
think RAK practice should change. Just give it!! Having the
jurisdiction as part of the name does not preclude also having a coded
form of the jurisdiction. Under AACR2, having jurisdiction provided
in imprint as needed, led to great variation: Boston; Boston, Mass.;
Boston, MA; and with no rule justification, Boston [MA]. Speaking of
postal codes, with WA meaning either Washington State or Western
Australia, postal codes should not be used as jurisdictions.
5. The RDA rules in the areas of law and religion still have a
decidedly Anglo-American bias, which makes them very hard - and
sometimes impossible - to use. A really funny example are the books
of the Bible (RDA 6.23.2.9.2): "For books of the Catholic or
Protestant canon, record >the brief citation form of the Authorized
Version (...)."
Very true. A EURIGRI should substitute the predominant translation in
each country for "Authorized Version" unless and until you get an RDA
change. I do hope these RIs will be Europe wide, rather than just
German, for sake of consistency and record exchange.
The American bias also applies to DDC, LCC, and LCSH. As a example,
when in the US the larger denomination Unitarian merged with the
smaller Universalist, in DDC Unitarians were moved from their number
(288) to Universalists (289.1), despite Unitarians remaining distinct
in Europe, Asia, and to some degree Canada, not to mention
historically back to 325 C.E. The two traditions are very different.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
