[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27

[Jain Fletcher]

Hi, Bob,
   I agree with the kudos for your reply that have already been given.  (A 
quick *little* mention of a typo, if interested: "acadmic" in the 4th line 
or so of the 2nd paragraph.)
   I also agree with Larry's points about how earlier dissertations and 
disputations are fairly commonly found (uncataloged) in libraries.  In 
every library in which I have worked (most often as a part of the full Cat 
Dept), I have seen miscellaneous piles of them scattered throughout the 
backlogs.  They are either there (often in a variety of boxes, reflecting 
broad topic or country of origin) or still arriving from various sources, 
whether "gifts" or collections of them on specific topics coming from 
dealers.  Some places either don't catalog them or consider them as fodder 
for withdrawal because they are so "difficult" to catalog.  Quite often 
they come to the non-special collection libraries--these are the ones that 
are most disposed towards withdrawing them; if they make their way to the 
special collections libraries--that's where they lie in the backlog!!  (OK, 
I am sure I am exaggerating: not every library does this--just most of 
'em!)  So, I would just like to echo Larry's urging to make this clear--it 
is not just special collections catalogers who are dealing with these.
   My only other point probably won't make its way into this response, but 
occurred to me as I was thinking about your question in more general terms. 
I re-read the rule (as requested) and realized (as you have advocated well 
in a few different ways) that the rule could use more explanation.  In 
fact, it might well stand some re-writing, based on the sources cited in 
the footnotes--and possibly others, by now.  However, I am not advocating 
that.  The only point I am trying to make here is that, sometimes, MORE 
explanation simplifies a rule, where reducing it only causes more 
questions, confusion and lack of direction on the cataloger's part.  There 
are various examples of this situation found with our tools, most of them 
being the manuals written to amplify the inadequacies of AACR2.  For 
instance, the section on early books in AACR2 is 6 p., but the newest 
revision of DCRM(B) is 160+ p.  Even more compelling, the chapter on 
cartographic materials is 32 p. in AACR2, but the (unpaginated) Manual of 
Cartographic Materials, with its 2004 update pages, is touted to be in the 
600+ p. range.  There are many more examples of this, as everyone knows. 
And also, as everyone knows, the experts go to these "hors de AACR2" 
manuals, not to AACR2 itself, when they want clear, unambiguous guidance. I 
really feel that this is a point that the JSC needs to comprehend fully 
when they talk about "simplifying" RDA.
						--Jain




--On Monday, July 11, 2005 10:38 AM -0600 Robert Maxwell 
<robert_maxwell at byu.edu> 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.



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