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
