Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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! Keith Keith Trickey Sherrington Sanders From: Amanda Xu axu...@gmail.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Sunday, 7 October 2012, 20:14 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry Main entry is like a collar of your shirt. By pulling the collar, the whole shirt can be neatly pulled out of a pile from your laundry basket with sleeves and body part of the shirt lined neatly on each side. It's an AACR2 concept. Its creation is the intellectual work of Cataloger's judgement based on 1) piece in hand to be cataloged, 2) cataloging rules like AACR2 and 3) other analysis. It represents the most important unit of info to be organized for the search and discovery of the work. In general, editors are considered as compiler. His or her role in the creation of the intellectual content is compilation, not original one. That's why title is considered more important than other controlled access points of a bib. Therefore, main entry is entered under title. Adam correctly interpreted this written rule of RDA. In big data era, one of the biggest challenges is redundancy. If a main entry can represent top-level info for the unit of info to be discovered, much like a super key, it helps to reduce ambiguity, eliminate redundancy and probably conduct another user study that includes both end users and library staff worthwhile. Anyhow, this is what I can think of on top of my mind without any research. Hope it helps! Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: So in this regard it's exactly like AACR2?? Somehow while the short explanation given here is clear, I must admit what the RDA says is confusing to me. Jack Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/4/2012 5:57 PM Editors are not considered creators in RDA, nor are they considered other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with the work, so they cannot be tagged in 1XX. RDA 20.2 says: A contributor is a person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors, translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc. RDA 6.27 deals with constructing access points for works (i.e. naming works), and it states clearly that you name a work that has entities responsible for creating it (covered in chapter 19, which doesn't include editors), by combining the access point for the creator(s) with the preferred title for a work. Since editors are not creators, they can't be given in 1XX because the 1XX is the first part of the authorized access point in bib. records. 6.27.1.4 also makes clear that edited works are named using their title only: If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work using the preferred title for the compilation, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.2.2. ^^ 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 Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Ian Fairclough wrote: Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Am 08.10.2012 09:38, schrieb Keith Trickey: 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! OK, it is arrogance if we try to organize stuff in a meaningful way, and arrogance is a grievous fault. Thus speaks a current school of thinking, and honorable persons are they all who say it, nothing less, and so, they say, what better can we do than bury all those antiquated rules? Let us be humble then and use the searcher's information and not the predilections of our own as points of entry, and let's go forth and change all rules accordingly. And then who were we here, to even think we had to alter names and titles and their spellings, so as to fit our awkward mental model of the catalog? Exactly as the searchers speak, so speak the catalog, all else is arrogance, and that's what mighty Google thinks as well as that new school, and they are honorable persons all, or not? Imposing order where the user does perceive it not, nor value it, is pure ambition, and ask our patrons that they think, is arrogance, which not befits a library for sure! Nor judgement, as we used to deal it out by iron rules, is our part to exercise, for judgement is ambitious, and cannot be the cure. Let not our heart be in the coffin there with RDA, and let all searchers find resources, searching as they may. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
We should distinguish between the *concept *of main entry, which denotes the idea of primary responsibility for a work and thus serves to link authors to their works (and which, of course, need not be called main entry), and the different way(s) in which the concept has been implemented and/or represented in various cataloging codes. The concept is central to collocation of authors with works, works with authors, and, as Mac says, with providing the proper form for citations. I assume we are all still interested in being able to answer intelligibly the question, *Whose work is it? *As far as I can see, getting rid of the *concept *(as opposed to some particular cataloging code version of it) would make nonsense of WEMI and all our FRBR-based ambitions about building and displaying bibliographic relationships. If hierarchy in relationship is wanted (or needed), as opposed to a simple horizontal net of (somehow associated or related) nodes, then we'll still need a way to recognize primary creators and the things they create. Cary T. Isley Catalog Metadata Librarian Tulsa Community College On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM, jelrod jel...@islandnet.com wrote: On 2012-10-08 00:38, Keith Trickey wrote: Point of order! Main entry was adopted by AACR2 - Whatever term is used. scholars have been citing sources by author/title for centuries. I begain typing main entry at the top of a unit card since the 1940s. If we wish to :play welll with others, need the practice. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod Away from my mountain
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
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
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Actually, don't the definitions of Editorand Editor of an Compilation in RDA I.3.1 allow a cataloger the option to decide that editing or compilation rises to the level of authorship of a new work?editor ... "For major revisions, adaptations, etc., that substantially change the nature and content of the original work, resulting in a new work, seeauthor,I.2.1."editor of compilation ... "For compilations of data, information, etc., that result in new works, seecompiler,I.2.1."BTW, I just wrote a blog post about editors as a result of a friend's question about editors and main entry:http://cbtarsala.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/confucius-and-the-contributor/There must be something in the autumn air that turns a cataloger's fancies to thoughts of editorship.***Cheryl Tarsala, Ph.D.The Feral Catalogerhttp://cbtarsala.wordpress.com/c-tars...@linkline.com
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Cheryl Tarsala wrote: Actually, don't the definitions of Editor and Editor of an Compilation in RDA I.3.1 allow a cataloger the option to decide that editing or compilation rises to the level of authorship of a new work? editor ... For major revisions, adaptations, etc., that substantially change the nature and content of the original work, resulting in a new work, see author, I.2.1. editor of compilation ... For compilations of data, information, etc., that result in new works, see compiler,I.2.1 It depends on the nature of the work. There's a distinction here between a collective or aggregate work on the one hand, and a new work composed of data, information, etc. on the other hand. The former has an editor of compilation (a contributor) while the latter has a compiler (a creator). At least, that's how I understand the definitions in RDA. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Certainly if someone calls him/herself an editor or compiler but is actually an author or creator, that person is the creator of the work. For example, authors of bibliographies sometimes call themselves editors when they're actually the author/compiler/creator of the bibliography. An example is: A Mormon bibliography 1830-1930 : books, pamphlets, periodicals, and broadsides relating to the first century of Mormonism / edited by Chad J. Flake Chad Flake is an author (or more specifically, a compiler in the sense given in RDA I.2.1), not an editor. This is not a compilation of works by other people that Flake edited or compiled. Flake is the author/creator of the bibliography, and in the bibliographic record his authorized access point appears in the 100 field. This is the same in RDA as it was in AACR2. So referring to the definition of editor below, yes, if what the editor does is revise an existing work to the point that it's a completely new work, then the person is actually the author of the new work, no matter how he/she describes him/herself on the title page. There's undoubtedly judgment involved and we sometimes need to think carefully about whether the words we see on the source of information accurately describe what is going on. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cheryl Tarsala Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 4:15 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry Actually, don't the definitions of Editor and Editor of an Compilation in RDA I.3.1 allow a cataloger the option to decide that editing or compilation rises to the level of authorship of a new work? editor ... For major revisions, adaptations, etc., that substantially change the nature and content of the original work, resulting in a new work, see author, I.2.1[cid:image001.png@01CDA572.5EEDF400]http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappitarget=rdai-35#rdai-35. editor of compilation ... For compilations of data, information, etc., that result in new works, see compiler,I.2.1[cid:image001.png@01CDA572.5EEDF400]http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappitarget=rdai-35#rdai-35. BTW, I just wrote a blog post about editors as a result of a friend's question about editors and main entry: http://cbtarsala.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/confucius-and-the-contributor/ There must be something in the autumn air that turns a cataloger's fancies to thoughts of editorship. *** Cheryl Tarsala, Ph.D. The Feral Cataloger http://cbtarsala.wordpress.com/ c-tars...@linkline.commailto:c-tars...@linkline.com inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Main entry is like a collar of your shirt. By pulling the collar, the whole shirt can be neatly pulled out of a pile from your laundry basket with sleeves and body part of the shirt lined neatly on each side. It's an AACR2 concept. Its creation is the intellectual work of Cataloger's judgement based on 1) piece in hand to be cataloged, 2) cataloging rules like AACR2 and 3) other analysis. It represents the most important unit of info to be organized for the search and discovery of the work. In general, editors are considered as compiler. His or her role in the creation of the intellectual content is compilation, not original one. That's why title is considered more important than other controlled access points of a bib. Therefore, main entry is entered under title. Adam correctly interpreted this written rule of RDA. In big data era, one of the biggest challenges is redundancy. If a main entry can represent top-level info for the unit of info to be discovered, much like a super key, it helps to reduce ambiguity, eliminate redundancy and probably conduct another user study that includes both end users and library staff worthwhile. Anyhow, this is what I can think of on top of my mind without any research. Hope it helps! Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: So in this regard it's exactly like AACR2?? Somehow while the short explanation given here is clear, I must admit what the RDA says is confusing to me. Jack Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/4/2012 5:57 PM Editors are not considered creators in RDA, nor are they considered other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with the work, so they cannot be tagged in 1XX. RDA 20.2 says: A contributor is a person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors, translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc. RDA 6.27 deals with constructing access points for works (i.e. naming works), and it states clearly that you name a work that has entities responsible for creating it (covered in chapter 19, which doesn't include editors), by combining the access point for the creator(s) with the preferred title for a work. Since editors are not creators, they can't be given in 1XX because the 1XX is the first part of the authorized access point in bib. records. 6.27.1.4 also makes clear that edited works are named using their title only: If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work using the preferred title for the compilation, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.2.2. ^^ 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 Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Ian Fairclough wrote: Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700. Please send any comments to RDA-L. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
On 2012-10-07 12:14, Amanda Xu wrote: In general, editors are considered as compiler. His or her role in the creation of the intellectual content is compilation, not original one. That's why title is considered more important than other controlled access points of a bib. Here I think we library cataloguers have departed from scholarly practice, There are several compilations, particularly of historical documents, which are commonly referred to by their compiler, just as we refer to Mansell, which until I requested it did not even have an added entry under the term by which it us most often mentioned. I agree with Australian Hal that this question needs reconsideration. RDA changes some AACR2 practices which were fine, but leaves some questionable ones unchanged. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod Away from my mountain
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
So in this regard it's exactly like AACR2?? Somehow while the short explanation given here is clear, I must admit what the RDA says is confusing to me. Jack Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/4/2012 5:57 PM Editors are not considered creators in RDA, nor are they considered other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with the work, so they cannot be tagged in 1XX. RDA 20.2 says: A contributor is a person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors, translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc. RDA 6.27 deals with constructing access points for works (i.e. naming works), and it states clearly that you name a work that has entities responsible for creating it (covered in chapter 19, which doesn't include editors), by combining the access point for the creator(s) with the preferred title for a work. Since editors are not creators, they can't be given in 1XX because the 1XX is the first part of the authorized access point in bib. records. 6.27.1.4 also makes clear that edited works are named using their title only: If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work using the preferred title for the compilation, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.2.2. ^^ 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 Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Ian Fairclough wrote: Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700. Please send any comments to RDA-L. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
[RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700. Please send any comments to RDA-L. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Editors are not considered creators in RDA, nor are they considered other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with the work, so they cannot be tagged in 1XX. RDA 20.2 says: A contributor is a person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors, translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc. RDA 6.27 deals with constructing access points for works (i.e. naming works), and it states clearly that you name a work that has entities responsible for creating it (covered in chapter 19, which doesn't include editors), by combining the access point for the creator(s) with the preferred title for a work. Since editors are not creators, they can't be given in 1XX because the 1XX is the first part of the authorized access point in bib. records. 6.27.1.4 also makes clear that edited works are named using their title only: If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work using the preferred title for the compilation, formulated according to the instructions given under 6.2.2. ^^ 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 Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Ian Fairclough wrote: Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700. Please send any comments to RDA-L. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
