<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Indeed, Jain's explication is extremely useful. But I would caution against
turning "known" into "well known" or "very well known," as some of both
Jain and Beth's comments have implied (and forgive me if I'm misreading
your intent). A collection can be both minor in significance and unknown
known beyond a small circle of people who are aware of its existence, but
if that circle "knows" the collection by its donor, then in my view, the
rule still applies and qualifies the collection for main entry by collector.
-Jackie
<p>Beth Russell wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Thanks to Jain for reminding us that the collector
as main entry question only applies "w<font face="Garamond">hen the collection
is known by the name of a collector. "</font>
<p>Libraries will likely create more collection-level records for materials
which are NOT known by the name of a collector. Additionally, a given collection
might have been "created" by several donors/collectors. In either of these
cases, title main entry, adding a 7xx with the appropriate relator code/term
is not only much more logical, but appears to be mandated by both APPM
and AACR2.
<p>Beth
<br>
<br>
<p>At 12:59 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
<blockquote type=cite cite>Hello all,
<br> I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the
kind of thinking that people working on collections have to go through
all the time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words,
I don't always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with
such situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them.
In that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and weighting)
of factors about each collection (and its known collector) that helps determine
the placement of a collector's name in the record. Sometimes it's main
entry, other times it's added entry. The issue of concern that Deborah
has described (where both the collector and the collection are quite well
known) would almost always result in collector main entry in my own determination
of the factors involved. The only thing I can think of that would
bump the collector into added entry status would be if the collection was
a compilation of items *all* by the same author/composer/artist etc. (where
I think the author's creative input would trump the collector's).
<br> But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied
only for collections that are well known by their collector. In cases
where the collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite
sufficient to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e collector.
Because (speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this is a concept
Dr. Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging class): with online
catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the collector is placed in
a record, as long as s/he is there?
<br> Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration,
I thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection.
For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir
collection of 19th century British fiction to the test. (I'm pretty
sure this is well known ;-) Now, if UCLA
had not cataloged each book in this collection and instead had made a single
collection record for it--or even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct
collection-level record to this collection--can anyone imagine *not* having
Sadleir as the main entry? For one (of course) there is the generic
aspect that comes if entered only by its title: Collection of 19th century
British fiction. While it is fine to enter collections with a generic
title (esp. when the collector is not known), isn't it true that this is
quite a particular collection, put together by a known expert on the subject
and therefore... (repeat m/e rationale here)?
<br> Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors). I would love
to hear about how this comes out.<x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab><x-tab></x-tab>--Jain
<br>
<br>
<p>--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell <russell.363@osu.edu>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Others more knowledgeable than myself have already
described the
<br>importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution
is
<br>persuasive, but it is passionately held!
<p> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in
fact, the
<br>CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There
is
<br>only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
<br>collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
<br>contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry,
so
<br>long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules.
If
<br>one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
<br>scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in the
same
<br>way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
<br>clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
<br>different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
<br>fields.)
<p>It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
<br>guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after the
main
<br>entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who
is
<br>perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would
be
<br>some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if necessary.
<br>Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical
note)
<br>or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
<br>illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized
<br>addition to the example below:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>520 Consists principally of maps of the United
States as a whole.
<br>Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual
states
<br>and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
<br>collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
<br>includes materials collected during his business travels. $b Includes
<br>some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
<p>Beth
<br>
<p>At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
<br>
<p>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
<br>
<br>
<p>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
<br>appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
<br>Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it
during our
<br>day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue
of
<br>collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather
than
<br>later.
<br>
<br>
<p>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
<br>whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving
the
<br>collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
<br>persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
<br>materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
<br>field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title
main
<br>entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
<br>items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
<br>corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
<br>
<br>
<p>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
<br>collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that
name
<br>in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
<br>Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
<br>Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give
us
<br>your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
<br>discussion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>________________________
<p>Deborah J. Leslie
<p>Folger Library
<p>djleslie@folger.edu
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>----------------------
<br>Beth M. Russell
<br>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
<br>Assistant Professor
<br>The Ohio State University Libraries
<br>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
<br>Columbus OH 43210-1286
<br>614-247-7463
<br>FAX 614-292-2015
<br>russell.363@osu.edu
<br>----------------------</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Jain Fletcher
<br>Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
<br>Department of Special Collections
<br>Young Research Library - UCLA
<br>Box 951575
<br>Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
<p>v: (310) 794-4096
<br>f: (310) 206-1864
<br>e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu</blockquote>
----------------------Beth M. RussellHead, Special Collections CatalogingAssistant
ProfessorThe Ohio State University Libraries1858 Neil Avenue MallColumbus
OH 43210-1286614-247-7463FAX 614-292-2015russell.363@osu.edu----------------------</blockquote>
<p>--
<br> Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special
Collections and Archives
<br>UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
<br> Internet: jmdooley@uci.edu Phone: 949/824-4935
Fax: 949/824-2472
<br> </html>