Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Mac: That is helpful. I did not ask about whether the statement of
responsibility representing the contributors of component works should be
recorded in the 245 $c, but I can see the argument against that.
But I am still left wondering whether a plain 700 author added entry is
allowable under RDA, whether or not there appears to be any particular value in
it. Do you think it is, or must any added entry related to a particular
component work be a name-title entry rather than just a name entry? RDA does
not seem explicitly to provide for a simple author added entry related to one
component of the larger work. It only mentions name-title entries representing
the components as related works.
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:29 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a
compilation of works
Pete Wilson posted:
This ... 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 $c to
one name and 19 others.
We don't catalogue on OCLC. You would have to cut. paste, and post
for me to see it.
Without seeing it, the main entry should be 111 for the conference,
not the editor or author of first paper. Only the editor statement
should be in 245/$c, with a 700.
The authors of the papers are not joint authors. If you are going to
include them, they should be in 505 following the titles of the
papers, not in 245/$c. I see no real value in an added entry for just
one of them.
We are in the habit of doing full contents for conferences. In the
early days many speakers were members of firms for which we
catalogued. We are now paid by Lexus Nexus to key all paper titles
and authors for the online index they host of Canadian law symposia
proceedings, replacing a KWIC print index we used to publish.
(Could anyone use big grey 3 ring binders, left from that project?
Free for shipping. They do say Canadian Law Symposia Index on
them.)
Considering authors of portions of a compilation as joint authors will
be, I suspect, a frequent RDA mistake, due to RDA's fuzzy language.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
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. Pete From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:05 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works Pete, 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 well. 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: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08517.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09183.html The first thread then went somewhere else, but in the second thread, there was a very interesting answer by Bob Maxwell: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09188.html to which I answered with this: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09196.html 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: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08543.html Heidrun 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 $c to one name “and 19 others.” I made what I hope are some useful additions and changes to this record, which was already coded as RDA, but one particular thing has got me wondering. At first I instinctively added a 700 added access point for the lone author left standing in the truncated SOR, Danilo Martuccelli, because previously there was none. Then it occurred to me that the “work” this book embodies is a compilation, and Martuccelli is in fact responsible only for one contribution to the compilation—i.e., one component work within the larger work. He is not a co-creator of the entirety of the larger work. (Mejia Sanabria, on the other hand, is of course a contributor to the entire compilation-work and his 700 is indubitably legitimate.) Does this mean that Martuccelli, author of just one component work, should not be given a 700 added access point unless it is in fact a name/title access point that represents the component work for which he is responsible? (An AAP for the “predominant or first work” in a compilation is said not to be required for conference proceedings in the LC/PCC PS for 25.1, by the way.) Or maybe I’m getting too hung up worrying about “works” and the plain 700 author access point is
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Peter Wilson asked:
But I am still left wondering whether a plain 700 author added entry
is allowable under RDA ...
Why not do a 700$a$t?
Apart from illustrators of children's material, relationship
designators are not core. You could do 700$a$econtributor I suppose,
but why?
Unless the contributor is from one's own institution, why do one out
of 20?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Pete Wilson posted:
This ... 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 $c to
one name and 19 others.
We don't catalogue on OCLC. You would have to cut. paste, and post
for me to see it.
Without seeing it, the main entry should be 111 for the conference,
not the editor or author of first paper. Only the editor statement
should be in 245/$c, with a 700.
The authors of the papers are not joint authors. If you are going to
include them, they should be in 505 following the titles of the
papers, not in 245/$c. I see no real value in an added entry for just
one of them.
We are in the habit of doing full contents for conferences. In the
early days many speakers were members of firms for which we
catalogued. We are now paid by Lexus Nexus to key all paper titles
and authors for the online index they host of Canadian law symposia
proceedings, replacing a KWIC print index we used to publish.
(Could anyone use big grey 3 ring binders, left from that project?
Free for shipping. They do say Canadian Law Symposia Index on
them.)
Considering authors of portions of a compilation as joint authors will
be, I suspect, a frequent RDA mistake, due to RDA's fuzzy language.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Pete, 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 well. 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: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08517.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09183.html The first thread then went somewhere else, but in the second thread, there was a very interesting answer by Bob Maxwell: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09188.html to which I answered with this: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09196.html 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: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08543.html Heidrun 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 www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
