[DCRM-L] Simplification of AACR2 ch. 21

[Noble, Richard]

If proper assignment of an authorial heading matters, then the rule needs to stay. Dissertation titles are complex--I'm not sure how simple the rule can be made without oversimplifying. The relationships expressed in the title pages of dissertations need to be explained, since they're not self-evident and require some knowledge of archaic academic practice.
 
There's a footnote to the rule, to a C19 work on cataloguing (author title not available to me at the moment) that includes a very wise chapter on this problem--the irony being that AACR didn't follow him. He says treat the respondent as author (responsible for intellectual content), not the praeses, unless there's good evidence to the contrary. It's the generally the respondent who's being examined, and whose work is being presented, though there are cases when the student is just a mouthpiece for his praesidential guru. AACR defaults to the praeses. [But then there are other rather odd rules--like the one that has us putting The Beggar's Opera under Pepusch (the musical arranger) rather than Gay (the author)].
 
Most cataloguers would need some guidance. Some books are hard. There are some among us who may be better acquainted with how this all works (e.g. Larry Creider?).
 
Richard

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thu 7/7/2005 3:39 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu; Arvid Nelsen; Bob Hall; Brian Hillyard; Deborah Leslie; Eileen Heeran; Janice Matthiesen; Joe Springer; John Attig; Larry Creider; Lenore Rouse; Lucy Marks; Manon Theroux; Maria Oldal; me; Windy Lundy
Cc: Mary L. Larsgaard
Subject: [DCRM-L] Simplification of AACR2 ch. 21


The JSC wants to simplify the rules currently in AACR2 chapter 21, and proposes to eliminate or at least simplify some of the special rules. Included on the list of rules under consideration is 21.27, the rule for dealing with academic disputations. Since the rare materials community is probably the one most concerned with this rule, I'd like to respond as chair of the Early Printed Monographs Task Force; but I'd also like to expand the response to members of the DCRM-B list. 
 
Please have a look at the rule, and then ask yourself (a) is the rule necessary? (b) If so, is it already adequately covered by other more general rules in Chapter 21, i.e., is it redundant? (c) If it must remain as a separate rule, can it be simplified?
 
The following quote from the JSC simplification proposal might be helpful:
 
"As part of JSC's general review, current provisions for choosing main and added entries will be replaced by a greatly simplified instruction to designate one access point as the primary access point for purposes of citing the work. Constituencies should therefore provide a principle-based rationale for any proposals to either eliminate or simplify AACR2 Chapter 21 special rules, and give suggested wording only if necessary."
 
CC:DA is asking for a response by July 11, so if you all could respond quite quickly (by tomorrow) if you feel like you want to, and then I can compile a response for CC:DA to forward on to JSC about this particular rule.
 
Thanks,
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