Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry

[Bernhard Eversberg]

28.10.2013 20:02, J. McRee Elrod:

 OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
 it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...

 The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
 long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries for
 works, single entry bibliographies, and assisting scholars with
 citations and footnotes.   Granted a searcher may not care whether the
 searched corporate body is 110 or 710; all it affects is Cutter.


But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules.
In fact neither AACR2 nor RDA mention anything remotely
resembling a call number. Motivations for rules should not
be based on a hidden agenda that is not part of the theory
of the catalog.

For the other functions you mention, would it not be sufficient
and more plausible to have a much simpler decision process?
Which might then be easier to make plausible even to scholars
for their footnotes? Like,

1. Creator's name + preferred title

Only in the absence of a creator:

2. Preferred title [ + Preferred name of corporate body]

with [ + ... ] if and only if a corporate body is responsible
AND mentioned on the primary source AND necessary to make the
title unambiguous (i.e., not contained in the title)

That's more or less what we have in the latest version of
our rules, and it just works.

(Of course, current MARC data can not generate a main entry
like this in all cases.)



B. Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry

[J. McRee Elrod]

Bernhard said:

But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules.

No, but the effect on Cuttering should be, as should be display.
The A of RDA is not addressed at all by RDA,

The effect on access should be the prime concern in writing,
interpreting, and applying rules.

For the other functions you mention, would it not be sufficient and
more plausible to have a much simpler decision process?

I suspect nothing would prove simpler than our centuries long practice
of author plus title where there is an author, and title (qualified if
needed) if not author.

The inconsistency over time of entry of items with multiple authors,
and produced by corporate bodies, does create unfortunate variety, as
does our refusal to accept compilers and main entry.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry

[J. McRee Elrod]

Bernhard said:

.. or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order
to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ...

When rules for serials changed, so did they for series.  Field 410 is
not used, and 810 is much less used.  What used to be 410 2
$aSociaty.$tReport is now 830  0 $aReport (Society).

OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...

The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries for
works, single entry bibliographies, and assisting scholars with
citations and footnotes.   Granted a searcher may not care whether the
searched corporate body is 110 or 710; all it affects is Cutter.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__