Thanks Adam for confirming this exception. Jack >>> "Adam L. Schiff" <asch...@u.washington.edu> 10/8/2012 2:43 PM >>> Yes, the authorized access point for motion pictures and other moving image works is an exception and is constructed of the title only. Serials are not always an exception. If a creator is responsible for all issues of a serial, it would be named using the creator combined with the title. This of course is already the current practice in AACR2, such as when you have a directory or annual report of a corporate body or a serial always written by the same person (e.g. Roger Ebert's movie yearbook).
Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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: > Yes, I do remember now. This is a change on account of the rule of three. In > RDA is there an exception or > another rule that governs the entry under title for video recordings, > serials... > Thanks, > > Jack > > Jack Wu > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > >>> "Adam L. Schiff" <asch...@u.washington.edu> 10/8/2012 1:27 PM >>> > 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 > > > > > > > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
