[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

Thu Jan 22 14:24:02 MST 2004

Thanks to Jain for reminding us that the collector as main entry question 
only applies "when the collection is known by the name of a collector. "

Libraries will likely create more collection-level records for materials 
which are NOT known by the name of a collector. Additionally, a given 
collection might have been "created" by several donors/collectors. In 
either of these cases, title main entry, adding a 7xx with the appropriate 
relator code/term is not only much more logical, but appears to be mandated 
by both APPM and AACR2.

Beth

At 12:59 PM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>   I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the kind of 
> thinking that people working on collections have to go through all the 
> time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words, I don't 
> always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with such 
> situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them.  In 
> that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and 
> weighting) of factors about each collection (and its known collector) 
> that helps determine the placement of a collector's name in the record. 
> Sometimes it's main entry, other times it's added entry.  The issue of 
> concern that Deborah has described (where both the collector and the 
> collection are quite well known) would almost always result in collector 
> main entry in my own determination of the factors involved.  The only 
> thing I can think of that would bump the collector into added entry 
> status would be if the collection was a compilation of items *all* by the 
> same author/composer/artist etc. (where I think the author's creative 
> input would trump the collector's).
>   But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied only for 
> collections that are well known by their collector.  In cases where the 
> collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite 
> sufficient to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e 
> collector.  Because (speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this 
> is a concept Dr. Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging 
> class): with online catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the 
> collector is placed in a record, as long as s/he is there?
>   Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration, I 
> thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection. 
> For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir 
> collection of 19th century British fiction to the test.  (I'm pretty sure 
> this is well known   ;-)    Now, if UCLA had not cataloged each book in 
> this collection and instead had made a single collection record for 
> it--or even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct collection-level 
> record to this collection--can anyone imagine *not* having Sadleir as the 
> main entry?  For one (of course) there is the generic aspect that comes 
> if entered only by its title: Collection of 19th century British 
> fiction.  While it is fine to enter collections with a generic title 
> (esp. when the collector is not known), isn't it true that this is quite 
> a particular collection, put together by a known expert on the subject 
> and therefore... (repeat m/e rationale here)?
>   Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors).  I would love to hear about 
> how this comes out.                              --Jain
>
>
>
>--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell 
><russell.363 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>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
>>----------------------
>
>
>
>Jain Fletcher
>Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
>Department of Special Collections
>Young Research Library - UCLA
>Box 951575
>Los Angeles, CA   90095-1575
>
>v: (310) 794-4096
>f: (310) 206-1864
>e: jfletchr at library.ucla.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
----------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20040122/9a09922b/attachment.htm 