On 05/20/2011 05:34 PM, Myers, John F. wrote:
<snip>
So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that "a single author is
good enough" when there are more than three, it is OK.
However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that
historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its
application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the
pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless
of number), that is now a problem?
On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to
incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty.
In the future, regardless of whether the "restrictive" option allowed in
RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important
will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and
expectations. Those agencies that use the record "as is", in its
pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own
constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes.
</snip>
That was what AACR2 determined: that a single author was good enough
when there were more than three. Do I agree? No, and I never did. So
what? There are lots of people who don't agree with what is mandated in
the standards, but it doesn't matter: they are still the standards and
must be followed. Otherwise, they are not standards. In normal
standards, they mandate minimums and you can do more. When cataloging,
lots of catalogers made additional access points. I have too.
Unfortunately, according to AACR2, that goes outside the standard
because AACR2 is not so much a standard as much as it creates a
template, as RDA does in a lot of ways as well.
The rule of three could be improved and turned into a real rule of three
by turning it into a minimal standard: "trace at least the first three
authors". This is simple, easy to teach and even adds access because we
would trace three authors when there are four or more, while if somebody
added the fourth, *it would still follow the standard*. This is the
concern that I have, here is an item with 3 authors and 2 editors, and
all I have to do is trace the first one and *still be in the standard*.
That is going the wrong way!
I keep quoting myself, but I hate to repeat everything. I talk about the
same issues in my last podcast:
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html
--
James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
