James Weinheimer wrote:

On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Adger Williams wrote:

Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections)

Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way?

Quite. They could be seen as attributes of the work and recorded in RDA elements 7.2 and 7.3 - in addition to the "ordinary" title of the work for the compilation/collection (RDA element 6.2).

If this was consistently applied, it would give us the possibility to find A) all editions of a certain compilation/collection (making use of the title of the work) B) all compilations/collections of a certain type (making use of the attributes of the work)

And everybody would be happy :-)

But people can do this right now, and they have been to do so for over a hundred and fifty years!

Are you really sure they can? My feeling is that up to now, both aims have been fulfilled only partly. Maybe this is what makes it so unsatisfactory.

If we assume that somebody knows how to use the conventional collective title in the first place (I agree that this is difficult as they are presented now), then they will still not get a *complete* list of all the compilations/collections of a certain type, because there always have been and still are exceptions (and yes, I know that uniform titles used to be optional under AARC2, anyway). According to the former LCRI, all cases with distinct titles didn't get a CCT. Now, LC seems to have reduced the exceptions, but you're still left with the "Leaves of grass" type, which doesn't get a CCT. Also, you don't use a CCT if you apply the basic rule in instead of the alternative. So you'll get some, but certainly not all of the things you want (provided somebody wants this; I think they would, but perhaps this is a minority view).

The second aim is also difficult to reach, because a CCT is recorded not in addition to but *instead of* the real work title. Compare: If you have a monograph like "The live and times of X" and you have the English edition and a German translation, then you can collocate them using the title of the work (The live and times of X), formerly called the uniform title. But if you have a compilation like "Best of X's short stories" in an English and a German edition, you cannot collocate these two in the same way, as the work title hasn't been recorded as "Best of X's short stories" but instead as "Short stories. Selections". The "real" work title (Best of X's short stories) is identical with the English manifestation title, but not with the German, so you'll get only half of what you're looking for.

That's why I think that the two things - the title of the aggregate work on the one hand, and the information about its collective character on the other - should better be kept apart instead of mixed together. Then we also wouldn't need all the "casuistry" which Bernhard mentioned. You wouldn't have to try and work out in which case the CCT should be used. We would simply do two different things:

1. Record the title of the work - no special rule would be needed for compilations/collections 2. Check if the work in question is a compilation/collection. If so, give the information in the respective attribute(s).


Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
In the body of the message:

Reply via email to