Agreed [though I'm not sure that's the specific issue Mac was
addressing] -- the Task Force on the Rule of 3 final report (2001) reads:
The "rule of three" was certainly not based on the functions of the
catalog as stated in the basic principles cited above [the Paris
Principles, etc.]; when access is deliberately left out of the record
for a given author, then the catalog will not be an "efficient
instrument" to find out "which works by a particular author ... are in
the library"; the user will not find all of "the works for which a given
person or corporate body is responsible" which the library owns or has
access to. On the contrary, the "rule of three" is inconsistent with
some of the most fundamental principles of cataloging theory.
/Jennifer Erica Sweda
Social Sciences Cataloging Librarian
Univ. of Pennsylvania Libraries
and
Member of the Task Force on the Rule of 3
/
On 5/19/2011 10:16 AM, Myers, John F. wrote:
The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the part
of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for. I
certainly would never have noticed it in the years preceding my
cataloging education. If I had, I would likely have wondered, why isn't
the author in the same position as the authors of other books?, why
aren't all the authors listed?
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308
518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu
