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.


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a 
compilation of works


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 

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:

The first thread then went somewhere else, but in the second thread, there was 
a very interesting answer by Bob Maxwell:
to which I answered with this:

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:


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

Reply via email to