[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Beth Russell]

Robert & everyone,

I just spent a few fruitless moments with AACR2 looking for guidance in 
this matter. The only helpful rule I can find is 21.1A1, which states that 
"a personal author is the person chiefly responsible for the creation of 
the intellectual or artistic content of a work." 21.1A2 then directs us to 
"enter a work by one or more persons under the heading for the personal 
author (see 21.4A) the principle personal author (see 21.6B) or the 
probable personal author (see 21.5B.)"

I may very well be overlooking specific rules in AACR2 which prohibit 
catalogers from concluding that a collector, in a given context, is a 
personal author, chiefly responsible for the content of a work. If there 
are no such rules, and if "our" shared understanding of personal authorship 
equates compilation of a collection with creator-ship, I would think AACR2 
is broad enough to allow it.

I now await the replies of those who "speak AACR" better than I!

Beth


At 01:14 PM 1/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>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
> >----------------------
> >
> >

----------------------
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
----------------------