<html>
<body>
At 05:01 PM 7/7/2005, Rettberg, Dan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">As one who has catalogued quite
a few of the pre-1801 disputations, I find the rule as it stands both
essential and helpful. Most of these do have a praeses and a respondent,
both clearly listed on the t.p. (although not always). I thought the
purpose of cataloging was to provide as many points of access as
possible, so as to make the piece easily accessible. Also, listing both
facilitates research into the scholarship of individual European
scholars. More than a few of these names are listed in the standard
bio-bibliographies, and are not particularly difficult to access.
</font></blockquote><font face="arial"><br>
I don't think the question is whether these access points are needed, but
rather whether the general rules for main and added entries is adequate
or whether a special rule is needed.<br><br>
Clearly, the general rules would cause a cataloger to make an entry for
both the praeses and the respondent. However, I'm not sure that the
general rules would tell the cataloger which of them is the primary
creator of the work. The general rule, I suspect, would lead to a
decision that this is a work of shared responsibility and that the main
entry would be under the first named. Is this an appropriate
result? Is it an obvious result? Or is specific guidance
needed for this particular case?<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>John
Attig<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Penn State
University<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
jxa16@psulias.psu.edu<br>
</font></body>
</html>