[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Robert Maxwell]

Arguments have been put forward that it would be logical or a good idea (or enlightened or special :-) to assign main entry to the collector of a group of items that are to be cataloged on a collective record. These arguments are certainly persuasive, but in order to be convincing to the editors (I think ...), giving main entry to collector has to comply with the principles we've all agreed lie behind DCRM(B). One of the main principles is: 

"DCRM rules shall conform to the structure and language of the latest revision of AACR2 to the extent possible ... DCRM shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences expected between rare and general materials." (see http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/wg1finaldraft20030313.doc; this language will appear in DCRM).

As I say, persuasive arguments have been made that doing this might be a good idea, but I have not heard any persuasive argument (yet) that introducing this rule, which *would* produce different results than AACR2 would, *is* "required by differences expected between rare and general materials." A cataloger of general materials following AACR2 making a collective record for a group of items (whether it be a scrapbook, a bunch of stuff in the backlog, or a discrete collection of published books) would not assign main entry to the collector under AACR2 rules. The argument that this follows archival practice is only slightly relevant since we are not promulgating archival rules but rare materials rules. The principles for DCRM rule forumlation do not say "DCRM shall not introduce rules that are not required by differences between *archival* and general materials" but "*rare* and general materials." 

I am a great fan of the main entry and am not on the side of those in the larger cataloging community who think the concept should be abolished. However, I don't see, in this case, a reason for departing from AACR2 that is required by the *rare* nature of the materials. At least I don't see this yet. It would be more helpful to me to hear arguments, if any, for this aspect of the problem, than to hear arguments that "it makes sense" or "it's a good idea."

And by the way, lest any of you are worried about access (rather than TYPE of entry), DCRM *will* call for an access point for the collector (if any); the debate here is only on the narrow point of whether that access point should be main or added entry.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dcrb-l-admin at lib.byu.edu 
>[mailto:dcrb-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of R. Arvid Nelsen
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:55 AM
>To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
>Subject: Re: [DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors
>
>
>Thanks for this clear line of argumentation.  I was debating 
>with myself
>the need for a follow-up to Jackie's e-mail, whose argument was merely
>we can be foreward thinking or backward, without a clear 
>argument of the
>merits of or need for the main entry.  I also think some explanation is
>required to counteract the argument also put forth that the 
>statement is
>taken from APPM and therefore (?) can be dropped.
>
>Kudos!
>Arvid
>
>R. Arvid Nelsen
>Special Collections Cataloger
>University of California, San Diego
>Mandeville Special Collections Library, 0175S
>9500 Gilman Drive
>La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
>858/534-6766
>
>>>> russell.363 at osu.edu 01/22/04 10:22AM >>>
>Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
>importance 
>of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
>persuasive, 
>but it is passionately held!
>
> From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact,
>the 
>CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
>only 
>one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the collection)
>and 
>if one individual is responsible for assembling its contents in its
>current 
>state, this activity surely merits main entry, so long as we maintain
>the 
>concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If one were cataloging a
>
>scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the scrapbook would play the
>same 
>role (and "deserve" main entry in the same way) although the individual
>
>components of the scrapbook (newspaper clippings, programs, photos,
>etc.) 
>would have originated from many different sources (which might be
>traced 
>themselves in 6xx or 7xx fields.)
>
>It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
>guidelines 
>call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main entry in
>these 
>cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is perplexed in
>looking 
>at these records. One would also hope there would be some explanatory
>note 
>in the body of the collection record, if necessary. Perhaps in our 
>discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note) or 520 / 505
>
>(summary or contents) we could provide an example to illustrate this,
>along 
>the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized addition to the
>example 
>below:
>520     Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
>Also 
>includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
>and 
>cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
>collection 
>was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and includes
>materials 
>collected during his business travels. $b Includes some maps of London
>
>environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>
>Beth
>
>
>At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>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 
>>
>>
>>
>
>----------------------
>Beth M. Russell
>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>Assistant Professor
>The Ohio State University Libraries
>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>Columbus OH 43210-1286
>614-247-7463
>FAX 614-292-2015
>russell.363 at osu.edu 
>----------------------
>
>