Hedrun said:
>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.
In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work
must be "official". An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue,
but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the
artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes
336 text). Both the gallery and writer of added text are added
entries. This distinction confuses our clients and cataloguers most
when applied to law reform commission reports. If a report is
informational, it has main entry under personal author or title; if it
contains the official recommendations of the commission for change to
law, the main entry is the commission. This looks very inconsistent
to patrons, and separates (by Cutter) the initial report from the
final one.
>Such a corporate body is called the "Urheber" (a possible translation
>might be "originator").
Atlases would be the nearest we have come to that I suspect.
>That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as
>the >creator under RDA.
In the absence of "official" nature, I would see it as *a* creator
(710) but not *the* creator (110). Again, I think we have more
clarity with the traditional terms.
Our head cataloguer is telling our cataloguers that when RDA is silent
or fuzzy, just do what you would have done in AACR2, but spell it out
:-{)}. Perhaps you should do that in reltion to RAK?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
