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name were developed) unpublished and largely uncirculated.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unpublished work, such as a thesis.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unpublished sources should always be provisional; and that names based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
Dalton McCaughey Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[log in to unmask]