<html>
<font size=3>Looking at the iterations of "Collection-Level
Cataloging Guidelines" that followed the March 2003 conference, I
find that all of them include instructions for entering the collection
under the name of the collector. What is the "original
proposal"?<br><br>
I think we are trying to be too logical in our consideration of
collection-level records. If you leaning towards treating a
collection of printed items like a monograph series, look at the
definition of "series" in AACR2:<br><br>
"Series<x-tab> </x-tab> <br>
1. A group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each
item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title
applying to the group as a whole. The individual items may or may not be
numbered. 2. Each of two or more volumes of essays, lectures,
articles, or other writings, similar in character and issued in sequence
(e.g., Lowell’s Among my books, second series). 3. A separately
numbered sequence of volumes within a series or serial (e.g., Notes and
queries, 1st series, 2nd series, etc.)."<br><br>
Collections of printed items do have some things in common with
series, but not much. One could make a case that many
collections have much more in common with archives than with
series. There are rules for cataloging individual printed items and
rules for cataloging archives. Neither of these sets of rules are
adequate for cataloging collections of printed items. These
collections are neither fish nor fowl. They should be viewed as a
third category, one that needs a new set of guidelines/rules, taking a
little from AACR2, a little from APPM, and a little (a lot?) from
LC. <br><br>
In the current introduction, we say the guidelines are based on the LC
guidelines in the Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 78, which instructs us
to enter under the name of a collector in certain circumstances. So
far, I have not heard anything that would make me want to
disregard/contradict LC.<br><br>
Jane<br><br>
<br>
At 09:35 PM 1/24/2004 Saturday-0500, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="georgia" size=2>There
has been an impressive amount of talented thought and insight so far on
the discussion about collector main entry, for which I'm glad. I know I
will spend more time perusing and studying the various messages and
arguments. In the meantime, I'm toying with the idea of considering
collections of printed materials analogous more to monographic series
than to archives. The effect would be to confirm our original proposal,
to only give a name main entry when all items of the
"series" are by the same person or emanate from the same body.
But like Bob and Larry et al., I believe it is preferable to have
principled justifications for changed or new rules.<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="georgia" size=2>Let me chime in, too, about the
importance of the concept of main entry. It no longer carries the
singular importance it did in the book catalogue days, but (I think this
was argued by Michael Gorman in an article I read way back in library
school) there is still a requirement for a "citation package."
The need for a consistent, reliable, and collocative way to cite works
has not diminished. And since we are not about to create title or
name/title authority records for every item we catalogue, our choices for
main entry should satisfy this requirement. <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>______________________<br>
Deborah J. Leslie<br>
Folger Library<br>
djleslie@folger.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/" eudora="autourl">www.folger.edu</a></font><font size=3>
</font><font face="georgia" size=3> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="georgia" size=3> <br>
</font><br>
</blockquote></html>