[rak-list] Aufsatzbände in RDA: O-Ton LC (2)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen,

und hier noch meine zweite Mail, wiederum inkl. der Antworten von Frau 
Kuhagen.

Viele Grüße
Heidrun Wiesenmüller

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

Dear Heidrun,

Please see my comments, inserted again in your response.

Regards, Judy


-----Original Message-----
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [mailto:wiesenmueller at hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 9:53 AM
To: LChelp4rda
Cc: Tillett, Barbara
Subject: Re: Two questions on RDA from Germany

   Dear Ms Kuhagen,

Thank you very much for your comments which have helped me a lot in 
getting a better grasp of RDA. Would it be o.k. if I posted them on a 
mailing list for German cataloguers, the RAK-List? We had already 
discussed the questions there, so it would be very useful if I could add 
this information to our discussion.

         JAK:  Yes, you may post the comments on the RAK-List.

Coming back to your answers:

1.

I had not realized that the first work contained in a compilation is a 
core requirement, although I now see that 17.8 can be read this way (and 
is probably meant to be read this way).

My interpretation of the "festschrift case" was quite different. Let's 
take the example from 6.27.1.4: "Music in the classic period : essays in 
honor of Barry S. Brook / [edited by] Allan W. Atlas". The festschrift 
as a whole is certainly a work in itself, although it is made up from 
articles which are also works (I believe the FRBR working group on 
aggregates calls this type a "work-of-works"). So I would have argued 
that the manifestation only contains one work, namely the one with the 
authorized access point "Music in the classic period". Therefore, I had 
expected the core requirement of "work manifested" to be already met by 
recording the primary relationship to the work "Music in the classic 
period", using one of the conventions described in 17.4.2. The 
relationship between the work "Music in the classic period" and the 
works it contains (the articles) would - according to this 
interpretation - not have been treated under the terms of chapter 17 at 
all, but under those of chapter 24 (i.e. not as a case of primary 
relationships but as a case of related works). Thus, recording them 
would not have been core (0.6.8).

         JAK:  Yes, a festschrift is a good example of a work of works 
(an aggregate work).  When you are identifying the aggregate work, you 
follow 6.27.1.4 because there is not a creator for the aggregate work 
(that is, the compilation does not contain the works of a single person, 
family, or corporate body).  If your personal judgment and/or library 
policy is to represent some of or all the whole-part relationships (not 
an RDA core requirement) in that aggregate work, you would follow RDA 
25.1.1.3 and apply one of the conventions given in RDA 24.4.
         JAK:  I agree that in a MARC environment that the core 
requirement at RDA 17.8 to give the work manifested is accomplished by 
naming the work when there is only one work manifested in the 
manifestation.  However, in a compilation, there is more than one work 
manifested in the work of works.  The wording "If more than one work is 
embodied in the manifestation, only the predominant or first-named work 
manifested is required" appearing just above RDA 17.8.1 addresses such 
aggregate works.  So, one of the whole-part relationships in an 
aggregate work is a core requirement; this relationship here for Work 
manifested is a separate element from Related work in chapter 25.

I'd still argue that this interpretation is a legitimate way of reading 
the RDA instructions as they stand now. So it might be a good idea to 
change the wording a bit in later editions in order to make clear what 
the intentions are in the area of compilations. I'm looking forward to 
your discussion papers for the JSC on this matter.

2.

Reading your comments on the problem of distinguishing between joint 
authors and a compilation it struck me that RAK, the German code of 
cataloguing rules, has a very simple solution for this, which seems to 
be similar to the way you're doing it now in the Test. So you might be 
interested to hear more about it.

The definition for a compilation (German "Sammelwerk"; main entry under
title) is as follows (RAK § 6,1-2, in an English translation of my own; 
I've left out the bits which refer to corporate bodies): "The term 
compilation denotes an aggregation of at least two single works or parts 
of at least two single works which do not originate from the same author 
within a one-piece or multi-part publication. A work containing 
distinguishable contributions by different authors (...) is also 
considered to be a compilation. In case of doubt whether the work in 
question is a collaborative work of several authors (...) or a 
compilation, consider it to be a compilation."

A collaborative work (German "gemeinschaftliches Werk"), on the other 
hand, is defined like this (RAK § 4,2): "The term collaborative work 
denotes a work which originates from several authors (...), whose 
contributions cannot be distinguished." A collaborative work gets main 
entry under the principal/first author, unless there are more than three 
authors.

So, the main criterion in RAK is whether it's possible to see somewhere 
in the book (e.g., in the table of contents, or in the main body of the 
book, when the names of the authors are given at the beginning or end of 
different sections) which author has written which part or whether the 
text is presented as a uniform whole with no indication of this. In the 
first case, it is always seen as a compilation, even if there are no 
more than three authors. This rule sometimes leads to different results 
than AACR2 (because "shared responsibility" in 21.6 explicitly applies 
to "works for which different persons have prepared separate 
contributions" as well).

The main reason for introducing this rule to RAK was, I believe, that it 
is very easy to follow and leads to consistent results among 
cataloguers. So perhaps it might also be a good way of handling the 
problem in RDA - especially as the former criterion, whether the parts 
have been published before, does no longer apply. Using this method 
would, however, lead to more cases of compilations. It also might not be 
desirable to have to record relationships to individual chapters in a 
book (according to your interpretation of 17.8), only because their 
authors are named in the TOC.

         JAK:  Yes, I am looking for a simple way to explain and apply 
the appropriate instructions.  Thank you for sending the English version 
of the RAK wording; I'll keep this email message for our use when we 
write our experiences in identifying compilations for the JSC after the 
US RDA Test.  Another aspect we intend to monitor during the Test is if 
Work manifested should be a core requirement for all compilations or 
just for some.

Thanks again for this discussion. I do hope I'm not taking up too much 
of your time.

         JAK:  Please write again if you have questions on this and 
other topics.  Our discussion has been helpful to me.


Regards,
Heidrun Wiesenmueller