<html>
At the risk of sounding shrill and obsessive, I add:<br>
<br>
At 05:03 PM 1/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Beth is dead right about the rationale for
collector main entry in APPM; but collections of published materials, as
opposed to archival materials, fall into a kind of grey area, largely
because there's a tension between our notions of main entry for
individual published items, or items published in some sense
collectively, as against main entry for archival
collections.</blockquote><br>
To my mind, the point is not that the kinds of collections we would
handle under DCRM(B) are equivalent in substance or nature to archival
collections -- they are not. The point is that APPM is a model that
provides comprehensive guidance for cataloging collections <i>as
collections</i>. We could choose to follow APPM in the cases under
discussion not because we are equating our materials with archives, or
because we want to reach out to archivists, or any such thing. We could
chose to direct catalogers to use collector main entry simply because
these guidelines make sense in terms of collections.<br>
<br>
Our notion of main entry for individual published items (in my humble
opinion) make no difference at all. Access may be provided to items in
the collection in any number of ways -- the collection-level record is by
definition not the means to do this. I believe the type of material being
cataloged is simply not relevant. This "materials neutral"
perspective is central to my thinking in this matter. <br>
<br>
Any disagreement may be worsened by the fact that we are only beginning
to consider collection-level records for the special collections / rare
books community in the context of book (DCRM(B)) cataloging rules. The
decision of the group in New Haven, articulated in the Introduction and
Rationale section, was that we didn't want to try to replace APPM for
archival materials. I do think it's possible, however, for catalogers
acting in good faith to extend this treatment to collections of (mostly)
printed material that might include non-print formats (A/V, computer
files, etc.) In this case, would we consult individual format cataloging
guidelines, or would we instead be guided by the concept of the
collection as collection in all our cataloging decisions?<br>
<br>
I also think Richard's points about local practice are worth
consideration. Catalogers have to come up with some way to make these
guidelines work in our diverse local systems. Certainly there are as many
ways to make this happen as there are local systems, catalogs, and
catalogers, and since collections are by nature unique, we ought to
expect this kind of flexibility in our records. <br>
<br>
I must also state, for the record, that I have no strong feelings about
the concept of main entry at all. I simply think that we should follow
the concept as it is currently expressed in cataloging guidelines. It's
true that in this case, I believe equating authorship with collector-ship
is a justifiable expression of main entry, and simply one of many
decisions that go into deciding how to describe and provide access to the
entity we are cataloging. <br>
<br>
Beth<br>
<br>
<div>----------------------</div>
<div>Beth M. Russell</div>
<div>Head, Special Collections Cataloging</div>
<div>Assistant Professor</div>
<div>The Ohio State University Libraries</div>
<div>1858 Neil Avenue Mall</div>
<div>Columbus OH 43210-1286</div>
<div>614-247-7463</div>
<div>FAX 614-292-2015</div>
<div>russell.363@osu.edu</div>
<div>----------------------</div>
<br>
</html>