Are these people are members of the corporate body? If they are, there is an optional omission in RDA.
*If the members of a group, ensemble, company, etc., are named as well as the name of the group, etc., omit the names of the members from the statement of responsibility. * I also find this in the statement you sent yesterday: * * *6.2.1.1.* * Corporate body as creator: A corporate body should be considered as * *the creator of those works that express the collective thought or activity of the corporate body, or when the wording of the title, taken in conjunction with the nature of the work clearly implies that the corporate body is collectively responsible for the content of the work.* *This applies even if a person signs the work in the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body*. I guess, the reason is that it is a work from the collective wisdom and effort of a corporate body. So members' roles are included in the collective wisdom and effort. Just my guess :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Talking about creators: One thing I find very puzzling is the treatment > of collections in a museum. Maybe I only have these problems because the > German rules for main entry for corporate bodies are completely different > from the Anglo-American tradition. So, perhaps you can help me here. > > Bowman says in his "Essential cataloguing" (which was the very first book > on AACR2 I ever read), p. 100: "What happens if the item falls under rule > 21.1B2 but also appears to have a personal author? The rules tell us > nothing in themselves, but the answer becomes apparent when you start to > look at the examples that follow. From these it becomes obvious that entry > under corporate body, if it applies, takes precedence over personal > authorship. This means that, for example, a catalogue of a collection in a > particular museum, provided that it emanates from the museum, will be > entered under the heading for the museum even if it has a personal author." > > He gives the following example: > Pre-Raphaelite drawings in the British museum / J.A. Gere > Main entry is under the British museum, with an added entry for Gere. > > So far, so good. But now when I look at RDA 19.2.1.3, there is a very > similar example under "Works of an administrative nature": > > Furniture from British India and Ceylon : a catalogue of the collections > in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Peabody Essex Museum / Amin > Jaffer ; assisted in Salem by Karina Corrigan and with a contribution by > Robin D. Jones ; photographs by Mike Kitcatt, Markham Sexton and Jeffrey > Dykes. — Salem, Massachusetts : Peabody Essex Museum > > The creators are given as: > Victoria and Albert Museum > Peabody Essex Museum > > Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that the museums are seen as > creators. But I don't understand why there is no third creator, namely the > personal author Amin Jaffer. Shouldn't this also be a case of "persons, > families, or corporate bodies [being] jointly responsible for the creation > of a work" (19.2.1.1)? I don't see how this case is any different from > others where the creators perform different roles. > > My speculation is that perhaps in RDA's system it is simply not possible > for a corporate body and a person to work together as creators, i.e. that > 19.2.1.1 should be read as "*either* more than one person *or* more than > one family *or* more than one corporate body jointly responsible for the > creation of a work". But if this is the case, then it should have been > clearly stated. Also, I really can't see a reason why it shouldn't be > possible to have a collaboration of a corporate body and a person in the > creation of a work. > > And there is another question: If Amin Jaffer or J.A. Gere in Bowman's > example are not considered to be creators, then what else could they be? My > feeling is that their contribution is at the level of the work, and not at > expression level. So the only possibility would be to consider them as > "other persons associated with a work" (19.3.1), i.e. grouping them with > "persons, etc., to whom correspondence is addressed, persons, etc., > honoured by a festschrift, directors, cinematographers, sponsoring bodies, > production companies, institutions, etc., hosting an exhibition or event, > etc." This really doesn't seem suitable at all. > > Or should they be seen as contributors (i.e. on expression level) after > all? If so, which relationship designator could be used? > > Any ideas? > > Heidrun > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Facultäy of Information and Communication > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
