[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Jackie Dooley]

The rationale for permitting 1xx for collector comes directly from APPM 
(Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts, the archival cataloging 
rules authored by Steven Hensen), which permits, nay mandates, this 
approach. Many aspects of our draft DCRM(B) collection-level rules are 
based in APPM, so following this precedented would be easy to 
rationalize.

It is hardly unprecedented, however, that rules for entry (as opposed to 
rules for description) give "mainstream" catalogers the most pause when 
confronted with decisions about reconciling "book" v. "archival" 
cataloging rules. Rules for entry approached from the ecumenical 
perspective of a wide variety of types of materials (films, photographs, 
prints, collections, etc.), in fact, reveal AACR2's unprincipled 
approach to main entry to be a flimsy straw man. So you might see this 
as an exciting opportunity for rare materials catalogers to take a stand 
from the perspective of the "mainstream" v. the "special." You think 
you're usually "special"? The question you pose is from the mainstream, 
through and through.

So you all decide: do you want to go down in history :) as being 
parochial (read "narrow") or as seeing the bigger picture (read 
"enlightened")? Don't worry, my tongue is firmly in cheek, but this is 
in fact how I see it from a broad perspective.

-Jackie Dooley

P.S. You invite those of us who have opinions to "give it our best 
shot"? Sheesh!! I'm guilty until proven innocent? Am I debating 
Republicans or what? :) :) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

---------Included Message----------
>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:05:35 -0500
>From: "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
>Reply-To: <dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu>
>To: <dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu>
>Subject: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>
>Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B) 
appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob 
Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during our 
day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of 
collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than 
later. 
>
>I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but 
whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the 
collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be 
persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed 
materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX 
field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main 
entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all 
items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or 
corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>
>We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a 
collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that 
name in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that 
provision. Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 
7xx field. Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions 
please give us your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can 
participate in the discussion.

>________________________
>
>Deborah J. Leslie
>
>Folger Library
>
>djleslie at folger.edu
>
> 
>
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------

Jackie Dooley, Head, Special Collections & Archives
UC Irvine Libraries, P.O. Box 19557
Irvine, CA 92623-9557
phone: 949/824-4935
fax:   949/824-2472
email: jmdooley at uci.edu


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2743 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20040121/98f86667/attachment.jpeg