[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

Thu Jan 22 14:52:11 MST 2004

Hi,
   Let me add to this (and to my own message which just got distributed), 
when I said I "applied AACR2 concepts", I basically meant the same guidance 
that Beth has summarized below.  In library school (with Drs. Svenonius and 
Intner as two of my cataloging teachers, as well as such luminaries as 
Martha Yee as classmates for advanced seminars on non-book cataloging) and 
in subsequent experience with a whole host of non-book cataloging, I have 
found that many people take the broad view of certain principles in AACR2, 
such as those which Beth has indicated here.  Please remember (or, please 
be aware) that AACR2 is more book-biased than anything else.  Aside from 
its chapters and separate guidance given for non-book material, the framers 
of AACR2 maddenly tend to think in terms of books when making general 
rules.  So, non-book people have had to develop a broader view of its 
guidance at times.  Much of this broader application has actually been 
addressed in rulebooks, such as APPM.  (This is, I imagine, the reason APPM 
was put forth as one rationale for accepting collector main entry.)  Still, 
in response to Bob's message with more explanation of the reasons behind 
the editors' concerns, I think it would be worth understanding that there 
is a rather large group of non-book users of AACR2 who have to apply rules 
more broadly because of their material doesn't always neatly fit into the 
boxes AACR2 has constructed.  (The best-case scenario is that AACR3 will 
address this book bias and fix it, but failing that, I hope the DCRM(B) 
editors will understand that collection-level cataloging falls into that 
other category of material needing broader application.)
   Once again, thanks for asking.  As usual, these discussions really make 
us think!!				--Jain

--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:58 PM -0500 Beth Russell 
<russell.363 at osu.edu> wrote:

> 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
> ----------------------
>
>

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