When the concepts for establishing a name were developed in the nineteenth
and early twentieth century, theses were published in most countries and
were frequently exchanged by major universities on an international basis.
When the notion that the most commonly used form should form the basis for
the choice of name was developed (1950's), dissertations and theses in
many countries were still published but not in the U.S. This is important
because part of the argument against using the form on theses is because
they are unpublished. A blanket rule will not work. Nor will a
distinction between published and unpublished, since published forms of a
name may be subject to rules not of the author's choosing.

The problem with hanging an interpretation of AACR2's sources for choosing
the fullness of name on a distinction between "publication" and "thesis"
is that the code makes no such distinction. Nor does it make a
distinction betwen published and unpublished works by an individual in
choosing a name. As things go, most of the time, evidence will come from
published works, but a statement of responsiblity is a statement of
responsibility and can occur on manuscripts, locally produced videos, or
sound recordings, even graphics of various sorts, etc.

If folks want to change the rule or urge that RDA incorporate such
distinctions, great. Go through the rule revision process. I do not
believe that you can interpret the current rule to justify ignoring
statements of responsibility on theses or dissertations.


Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Hal Cain wrote:

> john g marr wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Stanley Elswick wrote:
>
>>> 22.3A means [not] that the rulemakers intended that we *not* take into
>>> account theses everywhere else.
>>
>> That is an adequate local working hypothesis, but you need to answer the
>> question, to wit: why are theses given a relatively exceptional level of
>> mention?
>
> Because they are (or were when the concepts involved in establishing a name
> were developed) unpublished and largely uncirculated. Though they now
> circulate more than they used to do, they're still not "mainstream" documents
> in the sense that commercial publication, or posting on a widely-accessible
> site, creates.
>>
>>> We just don't know what they intended.
>>
>> Amen, and that is insufficient for a "rule" or a law and contrary to the
>> basic principles of same.
>>
>>> I would like to have a rule that excepts theses from establishing the
>>> most common form of the name
>>
>> Amen. For the time being, catalogers' prerogative of interpretation of
>> ambiguity allows that.
>
> Back in November 2006, I posted (to this list):
>
> "One more thought: I find problems with names established on the basis of a
> single occurrence -- especially when that occurrence is in an
> unpublished work, such as a thesis. It's my view that names based on
> unpublished sources should always be provisional; and that names based
> on a single occurrence (especially CIP information) should be
> provisional when established, and remain so for, say, 10 years. At
> least we would be alerted, when we had to investigate, that the
> information needs to be reviewed."
>
> Without intending to create loads of additional maintenance, I think we've
> moved beyond the idea that an established form of name must be immutable --
> we've adapted to closing life dates and to revision of "AACR2-compatible"
> forms. To admit that we haven't sufficient evidence to establish a form of
> name fully is surely a realistic approach to real-life situations.
>
> Hal Cain
> Dalton McCaughey Library
> Parkville, Victoria, Australia
> [log in to unmask]
>