Because the rule of three from AACR2 is gone, it doesn't matter how many
creators there are for a work. In RDA the authorized access point for a
work is the combination of the first named or prominently named creator
and the preferred title for the work. Hence:
AACR2
245 00 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A ... [et al.].
700 1_ $a Author A.
RDA
100 1_ $a Author A.
245 10 $a Title Z / $c by Authors A, B, C, and D.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Jack Wu wrote:
Whether main entry idea has passed its time I leave for others more
knowledgeable to debate on. In the 1960s one of
my library school teachers proposed we just sidestep this whole issue of
authorship and make title the main entry.
As far as I can remember, in the case of diffused authorship, in AACR1 editors
are chosen where AACR2 would choose
the title. And if we agree in the case of editor that it cannot be main entry
in either AACR2 or RDA, in what
instances then would AACR2 and RDA be different when main entry is considered
in the sequential MARC environment?
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
>>> James Weinheimer <weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> 10/8/2012 5:30 AM >>>
On 08/10/2012 09:38, Keith Trickey wrote:
<snip>
Point of order! "Main entry" was adopted by AACR2 - Eric Hunter argued
against it at a JSC meeting in
the 1970s in York and was timed out. It goes back to catalogue card days
- when full bibliographic data
was entered on the "main entry card" and the other cards relating to that
item were listed on the back
of that card. The concept of "main entry" belongs to the Cutter shortage
era when access was limited
(restrictions of the 5 x 3 card and staff to catalogue items and the
bulking out of catalogues) and the
researcher was expected to understand the foibles of the cataloguer when
engaged in a search for an
item.
The cataloguer's arrogance is part of the "main entry" concept. The searcher
approaches with catalogue with
whatever information they have - could be author or title or words from title
etc. For the searcher the
information they use to access the item identifies their "main entry" which may
be at variance with what
erudite cataloguers with a head full of RDA thinks!
Michael Gorman (Our singular strengths p.170 - Filing) illustrates this
beautifully!
</snip>
I don't know if it is arrogance so much as not reconsidering what you are doing
when there has been a fundamental
change in technology. There is a difference between main entry and the need to
come up with a *single* main entry.
This is also called "creator" and "contributor". In a resource with two authors
of equal prominence and status, why
should the first one be chosen over the second one, such as Masters and
Johnson? As Keith mentions, in a card (or
printed book) catalog, a single main entry was a very natural outgrowth of how
the card catalog functions, but in
the computer world, having to choose a single main entry is an anachronism. In
MARC format, the 1xx field could
easily be made repeatable, but doing so would have consequences for the rest of
the format, for instance, in
analytic added entries, where the 7xx would have to handle more than one main
entry. This has been discussed at
length on other lists; here is one of my posts to NGC4LIB
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/06/re-are-marc-subfields-really-useful_07.html
Nevertheless, there needs to be a difference from creators vs. contributors.
This is one part of FRBR that I have
actually liked: I cannot see how a single main entry makes much sense in an
FRBR system: there are names attached to
the work, or the expression, or the manifestation, even to the item if we
wanted. It makes no sense to limit any of
them to a single instance. Not having to determine a single main entry would
make the job of the cataloger easier,
make cataloger training simpler, with no loss of access to the public.
Mac and I have differed on this a number of times.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
