I think we're looking at this a little too closely. This element grew out of a note in AACR2 practice. It was never intended to be so precise. Note that in 184.108.40.206 it says "the name of the institution or faculty to which the thesis was presented (see 7.9.3)" but in 7.9.3 it's "granting institution or faculty." A slight difference, but we're not constructing a database of information about theses, so it's not significant for our purposes. I agree that in most cases it is the university that grants the degree, though it may act through its faculties or schools. For cataloging purposes I don't think it's necessary for RDA to specify which one or to make a distinction. Individual cataloging agencies or communities could make policies for what information they want to record.
As for Habilitationsschriften, they can be accommodated in the present element. You could record "Habilitationsschrift" in 220.127.116.11. It wouldn't hurt to propose a revision to broaden that instruction to include such terms. I wouldn't like to see new specialized elements created. ------------------------------------------ John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun > Wiesenmüller > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:39 > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Faculty" in 18.104.22.168 > > John, > > > I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom > to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying > amounts of information available. In most cases it's enough to record the > university name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the > name of the department or faculty for dissertations from their own > university. > > Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two > different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the faculty > or department where the thesis was prepared. > > > > I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a > > faculty, > > I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two cases > in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one of them > would illustrate the second case - and the University College was the only > one which stuck somewhat out. > > Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here? > > > > but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a > faculty. > > It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: > "the granting institution or faculty"? > > I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's > always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. > I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not > everybody's command of German is as good as John's): "The Friedrich > Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the > Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts > ...". I > also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same > impression. > > Heidrun > > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi