[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Barry E. Hinman]

Very impressive. I kept silent during this debate, because I didn't feel 
that I had a real grasp of this issue. Thanks to the debate, and to your 
presentation below, I feel I understand the issues better now.

You will like to know that in the 3rd paragraph from the end, you have a 
primary access poing instead of point.

Thank you for your good work on this.

Robert Maxwell wrote:

> Below is my proposed response to the JSC proposal on 21.27, based on 
> the discussion of Thursday and Friday. I need to send this in by some 
> time this afternoon, so if you have any comments, please do not 
> hesitate! I apologize for the tight turnaround time.
> 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
>
> To: Mary L. Larsgaard, chair
> ALA/ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
>
> From: Robert L. Maxwell, chair, ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on Cataloging 
> Rules for Early Printed Monographs
>
> RE: Response to /5JSC/Chair/5/, Special rules in Chapter 21
>
> The proposal to simplify or eliminate AACR2 21.27, the rule 
> controlling entry of academic disputations, is of concern to the rare 
> materials community as represented by the ALCTS/ACRL Task Force on 
> Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs and the membership of 
> the DCRM-L list, a discussion group whose main focus is the 
> forthcoming revision of /Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books/.
>
> AACR2 21.27 concerns entry of acadmic disputations, a not uncommon 
> genre previous to the nineteenth century. Academic disputations were a 
> sort of precursor to the modern thesis examination, in which a student 
> is examined by faculty previous to being granted a degree. However, 
> although the acadmic disputation involved questioning on a (usually 
> book-length) written work, this work was not equivalent to the modern 
> thesis because it was not usually written by the student. Rather it 
> was normally written by someone else, often the examiner himself, and 
> the student (or students) were expected to defend or contend with its 
> positions during the examination.
>
> The title pages of these works are often confusing. One order-bringing 
> factor does exist with them, however: in nearly all cases each person 
> named is given a functional designation. The person being examined may 
> be called the respondent or the defendant, or sometimes even “auctor”, 
> a Latin word usually translated as author, but in this case perhaps 
> more accurately rendered “spokesman” or “agent.” Title pages of 
> academic disputations also name the person who is presiding over the 
> examination, the “praeses.” This person may or may not be the author 
> of the text being used as the basis of the examination.
>
> The cataloger needs help in interpreting these title pages. If—at 
> least for purposes of work citations—RDA continues to maintain the 
> authorship principle, a bedrock of AACR2, consistent guidance is 
> needed to determine who will be considered the author in these cases. 
> Since title pages of academic disputations do not explicitly say who 
> the author is, AACR2 simply made a decision, based on experience with 
> these books and the research reflected in the studies cited in 
> footnote 6, that the praeses is to be designated the author in the 
> absence of strong evidence to the contrary. The rare materials 
> cataloging community as polled at this time is comfortable with 
> maintaining this presumption.
>
> We do not see how the rule could be simplified much further than it 
> already is without making a confusing situation more confusing. A 
> minimum of explanation (as found in the paranthetical phrases in the 
> body of the rule) of what these works are is needed to help the 
> cataloger understand what is going on. The rule clearly states who is 
> given the primary access poing and who is given other access points. 
> And the rule gives guidance for what to do in the unusual case where 
> no one is named praeses. It might be a good idea to bring the first 
> sentence of the footnote up into the rule itself, since this is an 
> obvious pitfall.
>
> We note that although this rule would pertain almost exclusively to 
> early printed materials cataloging, RDA cannot depend on the main 
> specialist manual to give guidance on this matter since DCRM(B), the 
> successor to DCRB, deliberately does not include rules on choice of 
> access points or formation of headings. Rare materials catalogers 
> understand and accept the need to integrate their records into 
> catalogs (and authority files) containing records prepared under the 
> general cataloging rules, and therefore do not wish to introduce 
> specialist rules for access points.
>
> The task force and others did suggest that the works cited in the 
> footnote are very valuable and, as they are in the public domain now, 
> it might be useful and feasible to create PDF files of these 
> articles/chapters and link them to RDA.
>

-- 
Barry E. Hinman	
Special Collections Librarian for Cataloging
Department of Special Collections and University Archives
Green Library (Bing Wing 408)
557 Escondido Mall
Stanford, California  94305-6004
bhinman at stanford.edu