Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Joan Wang]

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

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Paradis Daniel]

Hi Heidrun,

The relevant instruction is 6.27.1.3. The first exception "Corporate bodies as 
creators" addresses cases where "one or more corporate bodies and one or more 
persons or families are collaboratively responsible for creating a work that 
falls into one or more of the categories at 19.2.1.1.1". The instruction now 
clearly states that the corporate body has precedence over persons or families 
when the access point for the work is constructed. RDA therefore acknowledges 
that a corporate body and a person can work together as creators. For that 
reason, I agree with you that it is odd that in the example you quote the 
persons involved are not listed as creators. This is an issue that might be 
worth raising with the RDA Examples Group through your JSC representative.

 

LC has also prepared training material on art catalogs available here 
(http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html) that you might 
find useful to understand how RDA deals with museum catalogs.

 

Daniel Paradis

 

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

 

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721

Télécopieur : 514 873-7296

daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca

http://www.banq.qc.ca

 

Avis de confidentialité

Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il 
contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le 
destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la 
copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par 
courriel.

 



De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Envoyé : 3 mai 2013 02:23
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

 

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

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Joan,

Thanks for your ideas.

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 wasn't aware of this rule, but now that I've looked at it I'd say it 
is a very special case for music groups and such like. Also, it only 
applies to the statement of responsibility, i.e. the bibliographic 
description.


True, usually catalogs of collections are prepared by people who work at 
the museum in question. I just checked: John Arthur Gere was a curator 
at the British Museum, and Amin Jaffer worked at the Victoria & Albert 
when the book was published (now he's with Christie's). But still, both 
people are/were eminent art historians with a name in their own right. 
Certainly they cannot be, as it were, eliminated from the record.


And in fact, they weren't: If you have a look at LC's records, you find 
Gere and Jaffer not only recorded in the statement of responsibility, 
but also as added entries:

http://lccn.loc.gov/95132400
http://lccn.loc.gov/2002279060

Oops, just noticing: In LC's AACR2 record, Jaffer has main entry instead 
of added entry, and the museums do not have entries at all. It's the 
same when you look at the catalog of the British Library. Why, that's 
certainly funny - but I assume it is a mistake, because I believe there 
was no change intended from AACR2 to RDA in this respect.


Anyway, I'm certain that RDA catalogers will make an entry under people 
like Gere and Jaffer as well. This makes it even harder for me to 
understand why we aren't allowed to see them as a second (or third) author.




/
/
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 for drawing my attention to this bit in the Statement of 
international cataloguing principles. Indeed I can think of cases where 
this may be true, and I believe the phrase "if a person signs the work 
in the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body" is the 
key to understand which cases are meant. Probably, the person in 
question would be identified by something like "X, secretary of the Y 
Society" in the source of information.


But in the cases I'm thinking of, you might not even realize that the 
persons named as authors work in the museum in question. Also, I find it 
hard to think of such a catalog as something which has arisen from the 
collective effort of the whole museum. Note also that the museum case 
doesn't belong to the type "works that record the collective thought of 
the body" (RDA 19.2.1.1.1 b), but to the type "works of an 
administrative nature dealing with any of the following aspects of the 
body itself" (19.2.1.1.1a). So, it doesn't really seem to fit. (By the 
way: I don't really see how a catalog of the kind mentioned, which is 
most certainly aimed at the general public, could be considered to be a 
work "of an administrative nature"??).


Heidrun




On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
> 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 

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Joan Wang]

Heidrun

I think that the rule applies to other cases such as publications from a
committee or a church. It is usual to see publications that have committee
names as well as members. The example shown under the rule is about a music
group. But I feel that the rule itself does not indicate such a limited
scope.

My understanding is if these people do not appear in 245, they would not
appear in 700 fields (most of time). Since the rule mentioned is an option,
we are still allowed to list people (in 245 or 500 fields) that we feel
important for users and provide authorized access points.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Joan,
>
> Thanks for your ideas.
>
>   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 wasn't aware of this rule, but now that I've looked at it I'd say it is
> a very special case for music groups and such like. Also, it only applies
> to the statement of responsibility, i.e. the bibliographic description.
>
> True, usually catalogs of collections are prepared by people who work at
> the museum in question. I just checked: John Arthur Gere was a curator at
> the British Museum, and Amin Jaffer worked at the Victoria & Albert when
> the book was published (now he's with Christie's). But still, both people
> are/were eminent art historians with a name in their own right. Certainly
> they cannot be, as it were, eliminated from the record.
>
> And in fact, they weren't: If you have a look at LC's records, you find
> Gere and Jaffer not only recorded in the statement of responsibility, but
> also as added entries:
> http://lccn.loc.gov/95132400
> http://lccn.loc.gov/2002279060
>
> Oops, just noticing: In LC's AACR2 record, Jaffer has main entry instead
> of added entry, and the museums do not have entries at all. It's the same
> when you look at the catalog of the British Library. Why, that's certainly
> funny - but I assume it is a mistake, because I believe there was no change
> intended from AACR2 to RDA in this respect.
>
> Anyway, I'm certain that RDA catalogers will make an entry under people
> like Gere and Jaffer as well. This makes it even harder for me to
> understand why we aren't allowed to see them as a second (or third) author.
>
>
>
>  *
> *
> 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 for drawing my attention to this bit in the Statement of
> international cataloguing principles. Indeed I can think of cases where
> this may be true, and I believe the phrase "if a person signs the work in
> the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body" is the key to
> understand which cases are meant. Probably, the person in question would be
> identified by something like "X, secretary of the Y Society" in the source
> of information.
>
> But in the cases I'm thinking of, you might not even realize that the
> persons named as authors work in the museum in question. Also, I find it
> hard to think of such a catalog as something which has arisen from the
> collective effort of the whole museum. Note also that the museum case
> doesn't belong to the type "works that record the collective thought of the
> body" (RDA 19.2.1.1.1 b), but to the type "works of an administrative
> nature dealing with any of the following aspects of the body itself"
> (19.2.1.1.1a). So, it doesn't really seem to fit. (By the way: I don't
> really see how a catalog of the kind mentioned, which is most certainly
> aimed at the general public, could be considered to be a work "of an
> administrative nature"??).
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> 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 hi

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Joan Wang]

Forget to say, your case may not be the thing I am talking about. Have to
look at the item.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Joan Wang wrote:

> Heidrun
>
> I think that the rule applies to other cases such as publications from a
> committee or a church. It is usual to see publications that have committee
> names as well as members. The example shown under the rule is about a music
> group. But I feel that the rule itself does not indicate such a limited
> scope.
>
> My understanding is if these people do not appear in 245, they would not
> appear in 700 fields (most of time). Since the rule mentioned is an option,
> we are still allowed to list people (in 245 or 500 fields) that we feel
> important for users and provide authorized access points.
>
> Thanks,
> Joan Wang
> Illinois Heartland Library System
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
>>  Joan,
>>
>> Thanks for your ideas.
>>
>>   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 wasn't aware of this rule, but now that I've looked at it I'd say it is
>> a very special case for music groups and such like. Also, it only applies
>> to the statement of responsibility, i.e. the bibliographic description.
>>
>> True, usually catalogs of collections are prepared by people who work at
>> the museum in question. I just checked: John Arthur Gere was a curator at
>> the British Museum, and Amin Jaffer worked at the Victoria & Albert when
>> the book was published (now he's with Christie's). But still, both people
>> are/were eminent art historians with a name in their own right. Certainly
>> they cannot be, as it were, eliminated from the record.
>>
>> And in fact, they weren't: If you have a look at LC's records, you find
>> Gere and Jaffer not only recorded in the statement of responsibility, but
>> also as added entries:
>> http://lccn.loc.gov/95132400
>> http://lccn.loc.gov/2002279060
>>
>> Oops, just noticing: In LC's AACR2 record, Jaffer has main entry instead
>> of added entry, and the museums do not have entries at all. It's the same
>> when you look at the catalog of the British Library. Why, that's certainly
>> funny - but I assume it is a mistake, because I believe there was no change
>> intended from AACR2 to RDA in this respect.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm certain that RDA catalogers will make an entry under people
>> like Gere and Jaffer as well. This makes it even harder for me to
>> understand why we aren't allowed to see them as a second (or third) author.
>>
>>
>>
>>  *
>> *
>> 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 for drawing my attention to this bit in the Statement of
>> international cataloguing principles. Indeed I can think of cases where
>> this may be true, and I believe the phrase "if a person signs the work in
>> the capacity of an officer or servant of the corporate body" is the key to
>> understand which cases are meant. Probably, the person in question would be
>> identified by something like "X, secretary of the Y Society" in the source
>> of information.
>>
>> But in the cases I'm thinking of, you might not even realize that the
>> persons named as authors work in the museum in question. Also, I find it
>> hard to think of such a catalog as something which has arisen from the
>> collective effort of the whole museum. Note also that the museum case
>> doesn't belong to the type "works that record the collective thought of the
>> body" (RDA 19.2.1.1.1 b), but to the type "works of an administrative
>> nature dealing with any of the following aspects of the body itself"
>> (19.2.1.1.1a). So, it doesn't really seem to fit. (By the way: I don't
>> really see how a catalog of the kind mentioned, which is most certainly
>> aimed at the general public, could be considered to be a work "of an
>> administrative nature"??).
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Daniel,

great, thanks! Somehow I never think to look in chapter six.

The first exception in 6.27.1.3 is indeed just what I needed. So, I can 
now safely assume that the personal authors of such museum catalogs 
could and should be seen as creators alongside the museum(s).


Thanks also for the advice about the RDA Examples Group. I'll try to 
have the example revised.


Heidrun



Daniel wrote:


Hi Heidrun,

The relevant instruction is 6.27.1.3. The first exception "Corporate 
bodies as creators" addresses cases where "one or more corporate 
bodies and one or more persons or families are collaboratively 
responsible for creating a work that falls into one or more of the 
categories at 19.2.1.1.1". The instruction now clearly states that the 
corporate body has precedence over persons or families when the access 
point for the work is constructed. RDA therefore acknowledges that a 
corporate body and a person can work together as creators. For that 
reason, I agree with you that it is odd that in the example you quote 
the persons involved are not listed as creators. This is an issue that 
might be worth raising with the RDA Examples Group through your JSC 
representative.


LC has also prepared training material on art catalogs available here 
(http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html) that you 
might find useful to understand how RDA deals with museum catalogs.


Daniel Paradis

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721

Télécopieur : 514 873-7296

daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca 

http://www.banq.qc.ca 

*Avis de confidentialité*

Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information 
qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si 
vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit 
d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la 
diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise par erreur, 
veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par courriel.




*De :*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *De la part de* Heidrun 
Wiesenmüller

*Envoyé :* 3 mai 2013 02:23
*À :* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Objet :* [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

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 sho

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun posted:

>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" ...

Yes.  We would make an added entry under the personal author  if given
in the resource.   We have been told that exaples only illustrate the
point being made, and should not be considered complete.  This sample,
to me, only illustrates main (aka prime) entry, and one added entry,
not all entnries.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac,


We have been told that exaples only illustrate the
point being made, and should not be considered complete.  This sample,
to me, only illustrates main (aka prime) entry, and one added entry,
not all entnries.


Thanks for this idea. I see what you mean: As the example is under the 
heading "Works of an administrative nature" (which only applies to 
corporate bodies in the first place), they might have only given the 
corporate body creators here, leaving out the human creator(s).


But if this is indeed the explanation for the odd example, then I can 
only say I find it most unhelpful and even misleading. In a rule called 
"Recordingcreators", you would expect that at least all instances of the 
element "creator" are listed in the examples, not only selected ones. 
Also, when I read "Authorized access points representing the creators 
for: (...)", I naturally interpret this as meaning "representing all 
creators for".


Well, I'm going to propose putting the example (with all creators) under 
"Two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the 
creation of the work performing different roles". This should do the trick.


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Joan,



I think that the rule applies to other cases such as publications from 
a committee or a church. It is usual to see publications that have 
committee names as well as members. The example shown under the rule 
is about a music group. But I feel that the rule itself does not 
indicate such a limited scope.


I'm really not sure it might also apply to committees and churches. It 
strikes me that the omission in 2.4.1.5 doesn't say "members of a 
corporate body" in a general way, but specifically mentions "a group, 
ensemble, company, etc.". It then goes on to say that you can record the 
names left out from the statement of responsibility in "a statement 
identifying performers, narrators, and/or presenters" according to 7.23. 
So it seems to be limited to certain areas.


I may, of course, be wrong here. But even if we assume that it's a more 
general rule, I still don't that it fits my examples of museum catalogs. 
2.4.1.5 is called "Statement (of responsibility) naming more than one 
person, etc.". So my understanding is that there is a statement of 
responsibility which gives the name of the group, ensemble, company etc. 
*together* with the names of the individual persons. Now, in my 
examples, the statement of responsibility only names the person(s). The 
museums, on the other hand, are given as a part of the title proper. 
That's why I don't think it's the same situation.





My understanding is if these people do not appear in 245, they would 
not appear in 700 fields (most of time).


In practice, you're probably right. But principally, there is no 
compulsory link between the bibliographic description and access points 
in RDA. It's perfectly possible (though perhaps, not advisable) to give 
access points for people or bodies which are not mentioned anywhere in 
the bibliographic description.


Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi