Mac said:
Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once "Journal of
the American Chemical Society" would be been entered under the Society.
Actually, it still is under the German rules.
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are "responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued". The definition in RAK is: "a corporate body which
has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work". So,
there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that
there is no personal author.
Such a corporate body is called the "Urheber" (a possible translation
might be "originator"). If this corporate body is named in the title
proper, it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper).
If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the
title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry.
I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately,
quite incompatible with RDA).
#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.
Maybe there are differences between what is common in Germany and in the
Anglo-American world. Here, in the majority of cases a festschrift for a
corporate body will have in fact been produced by the body itself
(unless there is a "Friends of ..." corporate body, which may step in
here). I assume that the usual thing is for the managing board to say
"We'll have an anniversary next year, wouldn't it be a good idea to put
together a festschrift?"
In RDA terms, I think that these festschrifts (is that the correct
English plural of this lovely German loan word? In German, it would be
"Festschriften") are either issued or, at least, caused to be issued by
the corporate body. Quite often, the corporate body is also named as editor.
That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as the
creator under RDA.
#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.
The difficulty really seems to be the correct understanding of
"creator". Applying the rules in 19.2.1.1.1 is one thing, but bringing
them into line with the idea of what a creator *should be* is quite
another thing.
If we take RDA's basic definition of creator as "a person, family, or
corporate body responsible for the creation of a work", it is hard to
see how a corporate body could *not* be the creator of its own website.
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.
Yes, I quite understand that. This doesn't conflict with my idea of a
creator at all, as here the corporate body is really the subject of the
work. Corporate festschrifts and brochures are, I think, different in
that they are mainly produced to present and, as it were, "market" the
body to general public.
Oh dear, this is all very difficult. German catalogers will need a lot
of guidance here when we start with RDA. Perhaps one basic guiding
principle might be to use "corporate body as creator" very sparingly,
only in cases which clearly fit the examples given in 19.2.1.1.1.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
