[rak-list] Aufsatzbände in RDA: O-Ton LC (1)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen,

hier meine erste Mail an die LC inkl. der Antworten von Frau Kuhagen.

Viele Grüße
Heidrun Wiesenmüller

-------------------------------

Dear Heidrun Wiesenmüller,

I've added my comments, preceded by "JAK", in your message.  If my 
answers are not clear or don't really answer your questions, please 
write again.

Regards, Judy Kuhagen


-----Original Message-----
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [mailto:wiesenmueller at hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:56 AM
To: LChelp4rda
Subject: Two questions on RDA from Germany

   Dear colleagues:

at the "RDA in Europe" event in Kopenhagen, Barbara Tillett kindly 
offered that any questions about the content of RDA could be sent to LC, 
and I'm very glad for this opportunity. I've got two questions 
concerning RDA, which bother me very much, und would appreciate your 
help, especially as I'm German and have only a limited knowledge of AACR2.

1.

Let's consider a festschrift with a dozen articles. On the main title 
page the contributors are named ("With contributions by ..." followed by 
alltwelve names). According to AACR2 21.6.C2, main entry is under title 
andan added entry is made under the the first contributor. Such a 
festschrift would, if I understand it correctly, not have been treated 
as a "collection" according to 21.7B1, but would have been seen as a 
kind of shared responsibility in AACR2.

RDA, on the other hand, obviously treats a festschrift as a 
"compilation"(6.27.1.4; there is even an example of a festschrift here). 
The meaning of the former term "collection", therefore, seems to have 
been broadened when switching to the RDA term "compilation"; it now also 
includes cases where the items have been written for the same occasion 
or for the publication in hand.

	JAK:  You're correct.  In RDA, there is not a distinction between works 
in the larger work (the compilation) had been published earlier or not. 
  Even in AACR2, there is not always a clear distinction.

For compilations, main entry is still under title (although, of course, 
the term "main entry" is no longer used). But what about the authors of 
the articles? It seems to me that they are not seen as creators of the 
workas a whole (although I still think they would fit the definition in 
19.2.1.1), but only as creators of the respective articles. Obviously, 
it would be possible to record the articles as related works. In a MARC 
environment, this would probably be done using name-title entries.
Relationships to related works are not core elements, though, and an 
agency might easily decide not to do this.

	JAK:  You're correct that the authors of the individual works in the 
compilation are not creators of the work as a whole; there is not a 
creator of the work as a whole.

In this a case, is there still a possibility to make an added entry 
unterthe first contributor (or perhaps added entries under all 
contributors)?At the moment, I can't find a way to do this: The creators 
of the articles are, as I've already pointed out, not seen as creators 
of the work as a whole (because in this case, main entry should be under 
the first creator). Apart from creators, RDA lists only "other person, 
family, or corporate body associated with a work" (19.3.1.1) on the work 
level, such as addressees or persons honoured by a festschrift.
The creators of the articles certainly don't fit here. They also don't 
fit under "contributors" on the expression level (e.g. editors). So I'm 
really at a loss here und would be glad to hear your opinion.

	JAK:  You're correct that the authors of the articles are neither 
creators of the work as a whole nor contributors.  However, RDA 17.8 
addresses works manifested.  The core requirement when there is a 
compilation is torepresent the whole-part relationship of the first or 
predominant work in the manifestation; any cataloging agency could 
decide to represent all the works embodied in the manifestation.  During 
the US RDA Test, the LC testers will be applying the core requirement as 
written (the first or predominant work) and deciding if additional works 
are so important that they should be represented as well.  The 
convention we'll use to represent the relationship will be a MARC 7XX 
name/title authorized access point inthe bibliographic record with a 
second indicator of "2" to signal the whole-part relationship; we won't 
use the relationship designator "Contains(work)" from appendix J.2.4. 
(RDA 17.4.2 presents three conventions that can be used to represent 
these relationships; an authorized access point is one of those 
conventions.)

2.

Now let's consider a medical compendium where the chapters have been 
supplied by, let's say, 20 medical experts. In the table of contents one 
can see which chapter was written by whom, and the main title page looks 
quite similar to the festschrift example (it might say "with 
contributions by" and name all the authors). I assume that this is - 
unlike a festschrift- not seen as a compilation in RDA, but as a case 
where the 20 experts are jointly responsible for the creation of the 
work (i.e. they are creators according to 19.2.1.1). As there is no 
longer a limit of three persons, this leads me to think that main entry 
now would be under the first-named person (unless principal 
responsibiliy is indicated) named on the title page. Is this reasoning 
correct? If so, there is another question: Whathappens if the 
contributors are not named on the title page? Would I then take the 
author of the first chapter as the first creator?

	JAK:  We have been struggling with these same questions here as our 
catalogers who will be participating in the US RDA Test have been 
creating practice records this summer.  After the US RDA Test has ended, 
we will be writing some discussion papers for the Joint Steering 
Committee for the Development of RDA to consider about  compilations and 
other situations.  For now, we are telling our Test participants to pay 
attention to how thestatements of intellectual/artistic responsibility 
are given.  If all the responsible persons/families/corporate bodies are 
listed without any indication of who is responsible for what part of the 
resource, consider the resource to be one with multiple creators 
responsible together for the whole; the work would be named by the 
principal or first creator + the preferred title.  If there is an 
indication of responsibility for each chapter, each paper, etc., then 
consider the resource to be a compilation andname the work by its 
preferred title.  At least the first/predominant chapter, paper, etc., 
would be represented by a MARC 7XX name/title authorized access point as 
noted in my previous comment to satisfy the core requirement at RDA 17.8.

	JAK:  Another aspect to remember is that RDA does not have the 
restrictions that AACR2 does about sources for a statement of 
responsbility eitherfor multiple creators of a resource as a whole or 
for creators of works in a compilation (an aggregate work, that is, a 
work of works).  RDA 2.4.2.2 says that any source in the resource is a 
valid source for a statement of responsibility relating to a title proper.


Another thing that bothers me is that whereas I can see a fairly clear 
difference between the festschrift and the medical compendium, it might 
notbe as simple in all cases to distinguish between a compilation (with 
main entry under title) and joint creators (with main entry under first 
creator). I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this problem.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,
Heidrun Wiesenmueller