Heidrun said:
>The German rules for main entry under corporate bodies differ very much
>from the Anglo-American tradition
Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once "Journal of the
American Chemical Society" would be been entered under the Society.
>#1: a festschrift for a corporate body, e.g. for the 75th or 100th
>anniversary of the body
No, the body would bet a 610 and perhaps a 710. but not a 110
(speaking in MARCese). It was not produced by the body. Festschrift
has multiple authors.
>#2: a brochure produced by a corporate body to present itself and its
>services to the public
Yes. 110 and 610, assuming no personal author. But is is borderline.
>#3: the website of a corporate body
Depends of the nature of the website. Usually they are of mixed
responsibility, and would have title main entry.
>My feeling as that all of these should have the corporate body as the
>creator.
Make that "a" creator. Part of the ambiguity of RDA is "creator". A
creator may be a main entry or and added entry. The old terminology
is clearer.
>Undoubtedly, these publications deal with the body itself.
The resource should be both created by, *and* deal with, the body,
e.g., an annual report. Being about the body is not enough. Anyone
may write a history of a body, and that person would be the main entry.
What I say above is just my opinion, and the way SLC would do it. Others
may differ.
I remember a French cataloguer at an IFLA meeting, when corporate main
entry was more common in North America than now, sniffing at me and
saying "Corporate bodies don't write books, people do".
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
