[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Beth Russell]

At the risk of sounding shrill and obsessive, I add:

At 05:03 PM 1/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:

>Beth is dead right about the rationale for collector main entry in APPM; 
>but collections of published materials, as opposed to archival materials, 
>fall into a kind of grey area, largely because there's a tension between 
>our notions of main entry for individual published items, or items 
>published in some sense collectively, as against main entry for archival 
>collections.

To my mind, the point is not that the kinds of collections we would handle 
under DCRM(B) are equivalent in substance or nature to archival collections 
-- they are not. The point is that APPM is a model that provides 
comprehensive guidance for cataloging collections as collections. We could 
choose to follow APPM in the cases under discussion not because we are 
equating our materials with archives, or because we want to reach out to 
archivists, or any such thing. We could chose to direct catalogers to use 
collector main entry simply because these guidelines make sense in terms of 
collections.

Our notion of main entry for individual published items (in my humble 
opinion) make no difference at all. Access may be provided to items in the 
collection in any number of ways -- the collection-level record is by 
definition not the means to do this. I believe the type of material being 
cataloged is simply not relevant. This "materials neutral" perspective is 
central to my thinking in this matter.

Any disagreement may be worsened by the fact that we are only beginning to 
consider collection-level records for the special collections / rare books 
community in the context of book (DCRM(B)) cataloging rules. The decision 
of the group in New Haven, articulated in the Introduction and Rationale 
section, was that we didn't want to try to replace APPM for archival 
materials. I do think it's possible, however, for catalogers acting in good 
faith to extend this treatment to collections of (mostly) printed material 
that might include non-print formats (A/V, computer files, etc.) In this 
case, would we consult individual format cataloging guidelines, or would we 
instead be guided by the concept of the collection as collection in all our 
cataloging decisions?

I also think Richard's points about local practice are worth consideration. 
Catalogers have to come up with some way to make these guidelines work in 
our diverse local systems. Certainly there are as many ways to make this 
happen as there are local systems, catalogs, and catalogers, and since 
collections are by nature unique, we ought to expect this kind of 
flexibility in our records.

I must also state, for the record, that I have no strong feelings about the 
concept of main entry at all. I simply think that we should follow the 
concept as it is currently expressed in cataloging guidelines. It's true 
that in this case, I believe equating authorship with collector-ship is a 
justifiable expression of main entry, and simply one of many decisions that 
go into deciding how to describe and provide access to the entity we are 
cataloging.

Beth

----------------------
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/20040126/807cc78a/attachment.htm