Heidrun: Thanks for your comments and for your references to earlier exchanges. I think you and I see RDA similarly. It does not seem to me to sanction simple author added entries related to component works of the larger work being cataloged--it only mentions related work entries in name-title form. Robert Maxwell, judging from the exchange you referred to, does not agree, but I am not sure what he bases his more liberal interpretation on. If we are in fact allowed by RDA to make the simple author added entries, I wish that would be made more explicit either in the rules themselves or in the LC-PCC PS's.
The more restrictive interpretation, combined with the designation of only the first SOR as core, certainly inclines me to ignore statements of responsibility that are just lists of the contributors of component works, and record only SORs about editors in the 245 $c subfield. Mac suggests that the contributor lists simply cannot be recorded there. I don't find this particularly disagreeable--certainly this kind of SOR is different from one that lists genuine co-creators of a coherent single work. Also, I guess if the statement of responsibility about the editors of a compilation actually is not the first presented, it can still be conveniently seen as the first SOR that is actually about the work being cataloged, i.e., the compilation. It is hard for me at times to get my mind around the importance of the concept of "work" in RDA and its many ramifications for the details of cataloging, and I suspect even the writers of the rules have neglected to address some of those ramifications, at least explicitly. I admit that some of the training I went through has faded from mind, but certainly all concepts addressed in training should also be addressed in the rules and/or policy statements. Pete ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:05 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works 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<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>
