We've been discussing 126.96.36.199 "Collective Title and Titles of Individual
Contents" the other day, and there was some disagreement about its
meaning, especially with regard to the optional additions.
It seems to me that 188.8.131.52 covers two different cases:
#1: A resource containing several works, with the source of information
listing both a title for the whole and also the titles of the individual
works, e.g. three novels by David Lodge:
THE CAMPUS TRILOGY
#2: An individual part of either a monographic series or a multipart
item, with the source of information giving both the title of the
individual part and also the title of the series, e.g.:
Introduction to technical services
Library and information science text series
The rule tells us to use "The campus trilogy" as the title proper of the
manifestation in #1, and "Introduction to technical services" as the
title proper of the manifestation in #2.
This is straightforward enough. The problems start with a closer look at
the optional additions, as there seems to be a weird mix-up of work and
OA for #1: "Record the titles of the individual contents as titles of
related works (see 25.1)."
I believe this means that you can establish relationships to the works
contained and then record the other titles on the source of information
in this context. Related works can be recorded by using an AAP (in MARC:
a title or name/title added entry), using a structured description (in
MARC: a contents note) or an identifier (184.108.40.206). The identifier
option is quite common in German cataloguing, where we often have
hierarchical records. So we could have a composite description for the
whole and also composite descriptions for the individual contents,
linked together by control numbers.
If I got it right so far, then I have a huge problem with the phrase "as
titles of related works" in the OA. Let's say we have a German version
of Lodge's "Campus Trilogy":
In an AAP you would indeed use the *titles of the works*, i.e. the
English titles (in combination with the language information), but these
are certainly not the *titles of the individual contents* as you've
found them on the source of information (which are in German). In a 505
note, on the other hand, I believe the titles are transcribed as they
are given on the source of information. So you would use the German
titles, but these are certainly not the *titles of the related works*
(these would be their English counterparts). If you use the identifier
method, i.e. create a composite description for each novel contained,
again you would record the titles found on the source (the German
titles) as titles of the manifestations, and not as titles of the works.
OA for #2: "Record the collective title for the larger resource as the
title of a related work (see 25.1)."
I believe this means that you can establish a relationship to the larger
work, i.e. make an added entry under the series, and record the series
title there. In MARC, this is done by an AAP for the series in 830 (in
German cataloguing, it would be done by identifier linking). I think
there is a similar problem as in #1: For the AAP of the series, you
would use the title of the work, but this might not necessarily be
identical with "the collective title for the larger resource", as you've
found it on the source of information.
Summing up this rambling mail, I think it odd that, in a part/whole
relationship, some of the titles on the same source of information are
treated as titles of manifestion and some are treated as titles of works.
Maybe somebody can help?
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany