[DCRM-L] Proposed response on 21.27
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu
Mon Jul 11 14:06:14 MDT 2005
I have to say that "this rule is necessary" because an intelligent cataloger
cannot be expected to reason from the rules about shared responsibility (or
more doubtfully, mixed responsibility) to the solution. Where John Attig's
suggestion that we just use the first named person falls down is that these
works do indicate principal responsibility. It is just difficult to know how
that is done without some knowledge of the context. The current rule has saved
me a lot of time and money and made my cataloging more consistent. I need look
at the question of authorship only when something arouses my suspicion and can
spend more time on providing decent subject access (which can be a real boon
for historians of science and technology, among others).
What harm occurs when an inappropriate choice is made about how to identify the
work? There is a difference between applying a principle that is random, such
as alphabetical order or the order of names in a list, and applying such a
principle randomly and inconsistently. The harm is much greater in the latter
situation because it makes the task of the user in making any sense out of our
catalog much more difficult. Since the choice of entry in early academic
disputations is based on principle, choice does make a difference.
Larry Creider
Quoting Jackie Dooley <jmdooley at lib.uci.edu>:
> Your response is extremely clear and well written, and both your
> response and the discussion have been wonderfuly instructional. My
> comments aren't meant to impede your submitting that response, since I
> agree that it makes sense to keep the rule in the current AACR
> environment.<br>
> <br>
> But as a former rare book cataloger (once a cataloger ....) who has
> never encountered one of these critters, as well as a fierce proponent
> of the importance of main entry, a comment from a devil's advocate
> stance that is predicated on 3 assumptions: (1) that we want as few
> "exceptional" rules of entry as possible in our general cataloging
> code, (2) that catalogers are experts in application of principles and
> therefore can live without many "exceptional" rules, and (3) that some
> cataloging decisions are just downright arbitrary:<br>
> <br>
> One of the principal functions of the main entry is to establish a
> standard citation for an item, and at some level, ANY main entry can
> accomplish that. In various situations, for example, AACR explicitly
> directs catalogers to select what is in effect an arbitrary choice
> among equals (one example would be the case of 3 authors listed on the
> t.p. in alphabetical order, so Bates wins over Smith). Academic
> disputations are a bit different, since, as you've explained, there
> truly is one player who has played the primary authorial role. But
> given that the student will also have an entry (or vice versa in the
> nonstandard cases), what harm would be done if the lesser author
> sometimes inappropriately received the main entry? 21.27 indeed says to
> choose the praeses "... unless the authorship of the respondent,
> defender, etc., can be established," implying that the cataloger is
> going to examine the piece anyway, and that evidence may well exist
> that reinforces the final choice of entry.<br>
> <br>
> And a second thought about the universe of descriptive cataloging
> codes: I would like to suggest that it's time to start thinking about
> whether a future edition of DCRM <i>should </i>include rules of
> entry. There are plenty of precedents for this from other specialist
> cataloging communities, including the archival world (DA:CS and the <i>Oral
> History Cataloging Manual, </i>both published by SAA). I believe that
> LC's rules for moving images also include rules of entry, though I
> can't lay my hands on it at the moment. It has become widely accepted
> that we NEED specialist codes, so why not consistently move the
> relevant rules for entry to reside within the relevant specialist code?
> This would eliminate the need for a specialist rule in a general code,
> while providing a natural home in which a such a rule could be
> retained.<br>
> <br>
> Jackie Dooley<br>
> <br>
> On 7/11/2005 9:38 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:<br>
> <blockquote type="cite"
>
> cite="midAC6F958D83AE8546A1482816E532FDB102201D4D at klondike.exch.ad.byu.edu">
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
> <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name="GENERATOR">
> <div><span class="734153416-11072005"><font face="Arial" size="2">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.</font></span></div>
> <div> </div>
> <div><span class="734153416-11072005"><font face="Arial"
> size="2">Bob</font></span></div>
> <!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
> <p><font size="2">Robert L. Maxwell<br>
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian<br>
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<br>
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
> Brigham Young University<br>
> Provo, UT 84602<br>
> (801)422-5568 </font></p>
> <div>
> <p class="MsoNormal"
> style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">To:<span
> style=""> </span>Mary L. Larsgaard,
> chair<br>
>
>
<st1:stockticker>ALA</st1:stockticker>/ALCTS/<st1:stockticker>CCS</st1:stocktick
er>
> Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal"
> style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">From:<span
> style=""> </span>Robert L. Maxwell, chair, ALCTS/ACRL Task Force
> on
> Cataloging Rules for Early Printed Monographs</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal"
> style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;">RE:<span
> style=""> </span>Response to <i
> style="">5JSC/Chair/5</i>,
> Special rules in Chapter 21</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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 <i
> style="">Descriptive
> Cataloging of Rare Books</i>. </p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">The cataloger
> needs help in interpreting these title pages. If—at least for
> purposes
> of work citations—<st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker> 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.</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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.</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">We note that
> although this rule would pertain almost exclusively to early printed
> materials cataloging, <st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker> 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.</p>
> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in 0pt;">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 <st1:stockticker>RDA</st1:stockticker>.</p>
> </div>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
> Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special Collections and Archives
> UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
> Internet: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
> href="mailto:jmdooley at uci.edu">jmdooley at uci.edu</a> Phone: 949/824-4935
> Fax: 949/824-2472
> </pre>
> </body>
> </html>
>
>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list