Pete,
Working in Germany, I can't see the full OCLC record either, but I know
exactly what you mean as this is a question which has bothered me for
some time, as well.
In fact, I've brought the same point up twice on this list before (oh
dear, it seems I'm repeating myself...). Read up these older mails in
the archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08517.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09183.html
The first thread then went somewhere else, but in the second thread,
there was a very interesting answer by Bob Maxwell:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09188.html
to which I answered with this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09196.html
I would be very interested to hear what the common practice is in the
Anglo-American world: Include an added entry for the contributing
author(s) only, or include a name/title entry or do neither? The last
option is certainly possible according to the LC-PCC PS for 25.1, cf.
this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08543.html
Heidrun
On 23.11.2013 02:36, Wilson, Pete wrote:
I've just joined this list and I did it so that I can ask this
question. Please take a look at OCLC record #840606230, if you
would. This book is conference proceedings, and has two statements of
responsibility, one for a compiler (i.e. editor of compilation) and
one for 20 authors, which has been shortened in the 245 $c to one name
"and 19 others."
I made what I hope are some useful additions and changes to this
record, which was already coded as RDA, but one particular thing has
got me wondering.
At first I instinctively added a 700 added access point for the lone
author left standing in the truncated SOR, Danilo Martuccelli, because
previously there was none. Then it occurred to me that the "work"
this book embodies is a compilation, and Martuccelli is in fact
responsible only for one contribution to the compilation---i.e., one
component work within the larger work. He is not a co-creator of the
entirety of the larger work. (Mejia Sanabria, on the other hand, is
of course a contributor to the entire compilation-work and his 700 is
indubitably legitimate.)
Does this mean that Martuccelli, author of just one component work,
should not be given a 700 added access point unless it is in fact a
name/title access point that represents the component work for which
he is responsible? (An AAP for the "predominant or first work" in a
compilation is said not to be required for conference proceedings in
the LC/PCC PS for 25.1, by the way.) Or maybe I'm getting too hung up
worrying about "works" and the plain 700 author access point is just
fine.
Thanks for any help!
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
