<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Dear Bob,<br>
<br>
Your response is extremely clear and well written, and both your
response and the discussion have been wonderfuly instructional. My
comments aren't meant to impede your submitting that response, since I
agree that it makes sense to keep the rule in the current AACR
environment.<br>
<br>
But as a former rare book cataloger (once a cataloger ....) who has
never encountered one of these critters, as well as a fierce proponent
of the importance of main entry, a comment from a devil's advocate
stance that is predicated on 3 assumptions: (1) that we want as few
"exceptional" rules of entry as possible in our general cataloging
code, (2) that catalogers are experts in application of principles and
therefore can live without many "exceptional" rules, and (3) that some
cataloging decisions are just downright arbitrary:<br>
<br>
One of the principal functions of the main entry is to establish a
standard citation for an item, and at some level, ANY main entry can
accomplish that. In various situations, for example, AACR explicitly
directs catalogers to select what is in effect an arbitrary choice
among equals (one example would be the case of 3 authors listed on the
t.p. in alphabetical order, so Bates wins over Smith). Academic
disputations are a bit different, since, as you've explained, there
truly is one player who has played the primary authorial role. But
given that the student will also have an entry (or vice versa in the
nonstandard cases), what harm would be done if the lesser author
sometimes inappropriately received the main entry? 21.27 indeed says to
choose the praeses "... unless the authorship of the respondent,
defender, etc., can be established," implying that the cataloger is
going to examine the piece anyway, and that evidence may well exist
that reinforces the final choice of entry.<br>
<br>
And a second thought about the universe of descriptive cataloging
codes: I would like to suggest that it's time to start thinking about
whether a future edition of DCRM <i>should </i>include rules of
entry. There are plenty of precedents for this from other specialist
cataloging communities, including the archival world (DA:CS and the <i>Oral
History Cataloging Manual, </i>both published by SAA). I believe that
LC's rules for moving images also include rules of entry, though I
can't lay my hands on it at the moment. It has become widely accepted
that we NEED specialist codes, so why not consistently move the
relevant rules for entry to reside within the relevant specialist code?
This would eliminate the need for a specialist rule in a general code,
while providing a natural home in which a such a rule could be retained.<br>
<br>
Jackie Dooley<br>
<br>
On 7/11/2005 9:38 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midAC6F958D83AE8546A1482816E532FDB102201D4D@klondike.exch.ad.byu.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name="GENERATOR">
<div><span class="734153416-11072005"><font face="Arial" size="2">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.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="734153416-11072005"><font face="Arial" size="2">Bob</font></span></div>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<p><font size="2">Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian<br>
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568 </font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">To:<span
style=""> </span>Mary L. Larsgaard, chair<br>
<st1:stockticker>ALA</st1:stockticker>/ALCTS/<st1:stockticker>CCS</st1:stockticker>
Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">From:<span
style=""> </span>Robert L. Maxwell, chair, ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on
Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">RE:<span
style=""> </span>Response to <i style="">5JSC/Chair/5</i>,
Special rules in Chapter 21</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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 <i style="">Descriptive
Cataloging of Rare Books</i>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">The cataloger
needs help in interpreting these title pages. If—at least for purposes
of work citations—<st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker> 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">We note that
although this rule would pertain almost exclusively to early printed
materials cataloging, <st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker> 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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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 <st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special Collections and Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
Internet: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmdooley@uci.edu">jmdooley@uci.edu</a> Phone: 949/824-4935 Fax: 949/824-2472
</pre>
</body>
</html>