>No, because a compiler is a creator, i.e. a 100 field entry, and can >appear in a citation. The person who puts together a bibliography is >a compiler. The person who puts together a conference proceedings is >an editor of a compilation.
No, because "editor" implies changing or adding text (cf. the AACR2 definition). It is more than just collecting. If the compiler of conference proceedings simply puts the papers together, he is not an editor, only a compiler. What's wrong with having some compilers in 100, and some in 700, depending on the material compiled? The compiler of a bibliography is 100; the compiler of an essay or poetry collection is a 700. Unless the poems or essays were changed in some way, s/he is not an editor. RDA is doing too far in changing the established meanings of words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing Aaron said: >A compiler does more creative work. > >The editor is somewhat in between. > >At least for legal literature, the roles are distinct and easy to >determine. Very true, so sometimes one should have $ecompiler, sometimes $eeditor, and sometimes $ecomplier,$eeditor. As you say, the two roles should not be confused. Not every editor of a compilation is a compiler, and not ever compiler of a compilation is an editor. >What does GMD have to do with this? If one has the GMD [video recording] one know it is a moving image, so '$eeditor suffices; '$eeditor of moving image work' is redundant. If an icon or early display of 366 is substituted for the GMD, it is equally redundant. People keep saying cataloguing should not be used to compensation for poor systems. Relationship indicators should not be used to compensate for poor early warning. Neither should they be used to replace complete statements of responsibility; added entries should be "justified", i.e., mentioned in the description. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
