Isn't the decision based on whether the manifestation in hand represents a revised edition of the original work or a new work in itself? If it's simply a revision, changing the creator/work relationship seems problematic. If the changes have resulted in a new work, then a new creator/work relationship is implied. On the other hand, it's been argued that the work is represented by the preferred title alone, so that might justify changing the primary creator from edition to edition. I tend to think of a work as having a stable relationship to a creator and not based on the vagaries of publisher presentation, but a case could be made for the other approach. But then, determining when a new manifestation represents a new work is difficult if the original creator is irrelevant.
Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using the main entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later edition, with a different order of authors in the statement of responsibility. He responded in part: "Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it represents a snapping of the fundamental Lubetzkyan principle in choosing access points--i.e., the determination of who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the work being catalogued, and assigning other access points flowing from that basic decision. That snapped, the rule just says choose any access points associated with what you are cataloguing. No theoretical underpinning, no *consistency of application. In other words, that rule can't be fixed and I would suggest the MRI's say 'ignore this rule; choose the name of the person who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the edition of the work being catalogued as the basis for the access point' (in this case, the author/first author of the edition of the work being catalogued)." I'm open to other suggestions. But choosing the main entry on the basis of the main entry of an earlier edition strikes me as ridiculous. For every later edition we catalogue, are we supposed to research the main entry of earlier editions? What if we have the 5th ed., and the main entry has changed before? How far back are we supposed to go? The first edition? The preceding edition? Cheez. As John described it, we are not to use the earlier main entry if that name is not in the statement of responsibility of the later edition. What if it is in the title proper as mentioned earlier, e.g., Smith's Torts, fifth edition by Tom Jones. Earlier entry was Smith, later Jones, now? I seems to me our long standing tradition is to catalogue the item in hand. For reproductions, RDA (like AACR2 but contra the LCRI) has moved in that direction. But in relation to later editions, it has abandoned that very basic practice. Like Michael, I am inclined to ignore that rule, as LAC and SLC did the reproduction LCRI. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
