I'm sure this has been discussed but I cannot come up with guidance for it. RDA's isolation of rules for description of manifestations from rules for work access points is causing me problems.
I've got a book (it's on #871376999 if you want to look, but there are unrelated things I'm not sure about on that record as well) that contains two works by different authors and doesn't have a collective title. The title page looks like this:
Leonardo Morlino
Manuel Alcantara Saenz
Calidad democratica
entre lideres y partidos
La calidad del liderazgo
politico en los paises andinos
The first name goes with the first title and the second with the second, though that's not obvious in the presentation. (Also, please excuse the lack of diacritics here.)
I assume the 245 should look more or less like it "always" has:
Calidad democratica entre lideres y partidos / $c Leonardo Morlino. La calidad del liderazgo politico en los paises andinos / Manuel Alcantara Saenz.
Correct?
But what I'm really wondering about is whether to make a 100 for Morlino. The two-title construction is only there because there is no overall title for the manifestation; if there was an overall title, I certainly would not use a 100.
Should I make a 100 for Morlino as we would have in AACR2, or should the 245 stand alone? (Mac Elrod's company would supply an overall title, I realize, but I'm not really looking for that as the answer unless that's what RDA actually says.)
If there is no 1xx field, then obviously I'll make two 700 name-title analytical access points for the two works. But if I do have a 100, should I still make them for both works, or do I skip making one for Morlino's work?
Thanks very much for any help.
|