[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Robert Maxwell]

Below is my proposed response to the JSC proposal on 21.27, based on the
discussion of Thursday and Friday. I need to send this in by some time
this afternoon, so if you have any comments, please do not hesitate! I
apologize for the tight turnaround time.
 
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 

 

To:       Mary L. Larsgaard, chair
ALA/ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

From:   Robert L. Maxwell, chair, ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging
Rules for Early Printed Monographs

RE:       Response to 5JSC/Chair/5, Special rules in Chapter 21

The proposal to simplify or eliminate AACR2 21.27, the rule controlling
entry of academic disputations, is of concern to the rare materials
community as represented by the ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging
Rules for Early Printed Monographs and the membership of the DCRM-L
list, a discussion group whose main focus is the forthcoming revision of
Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books. 

AACR2 21.27 concerns entry of acadmic disputations, a not uncommon genre
previous to the nineteenth century. Academic disputations were a sort of
precursor to the modern thesis examination, in which a student is
examined by faculty previous to being granted a degree. However,
although the acadmic disputation involved questioning on a (usually
book-length) written work, this work was not equivalent to the modern
thesis because it was not usually written by the student. Rather it was
normally written by someone else, often the examiner himself, and the
student (or students) were expected to defend or contend with its
positions during the examination.

The title pages of these works are often confusing. One order-bringing
factor does exist with them, however: in nearly all cases each person
named is given a functional designation. The person being examined may
be called the respondent or the defendant, or sometimes even "auctor", a
Latin word usually translated as author, but in this case perhaps more
accurately rendered "spokesman" or "agent." Title pages of academic
disputations also name the person who is presiding over the examination,
the "praeses." This person may or may not be the author of the text
being used as the basis of the examination.

The cataloger needs help in interpreting these title pages. If-at least
for purposes of work citations-RDA continues to maintain the authorship
principle, a bedrock of AACR2, consistent guidance is needed to
determine who will be considered the author in these cases. Since title
pages of academic disputations do not explicitly say who the author is,
AACR2 simply made a decision, based on experience with these books and
the research reflected in the studies cited in footnote 6, that the
praeses is to be designated the author in the absence of strong evidence
to the contrary. The rare materials cataloging community as polled at
this time is comfortable with maintaining this presumption.

We do not see how the rule could be simplified much further than it
already is without making a confusing situation more confusing. A
minimum of explanation (as found in the paranthetical phrases in the
body of the rule) of what these works are is needed to help the
cataloger understand what is going on. The rule clearly states who is
given the primary access poing and who is given other access points. And
the rule gives guidance for what to do in the unusual case where no one
is named praeses. It might be a good idea to bring the first sentence of
the footnote up into the rule itself, since this is an obvious pitfall.

We note that although this rule would pertain almost exclusively to
early printed materials cataloging, RDA cannot depend on the main
specialist manual to give guidance on this matter since DCRM(B), the
successor to DCRB, deliberately does not include rules on choice of
access points or formation of headings. Rare materials catalogers
understand and accept the need to integrate their records into catalogs
(and authority files) containing records prepared under the general
cataloging rules, and therefore do not wish to introduce specialist
rules for access points.

The task force and others did suggest that the works cited in the
footnote are very valuable and, as they are in the public domain now, it
might be useful and feasible to create PDF files of these
articles/chapters and link them to RDA.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050711/a271ea78/attachment.htm