I think it would be clearest if the work as a whole went back to title. There could still be authority records for the individual authors' portions entered under their names if an AAP is needed for a work that discusses, for example, Jean de Meun's contributions.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Open-ended cross-references
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:27:39 +0000, Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>If we have a single work that is a collaboration between two authors, then one NAR would be established to represent the work, with one of the authors in the 100 and the other in the 400:
>100 Author 1. $t Title
>400 Author 2. $t Title
>500 $w r $i Author: $a Author 1
>500 $w r $i Author: $a Author 2
>Is Roman de la Rose a collaborative work?
>If it is a collaborative work, then the part by Jean de Meun would be established under author 1 as:
>100 Author 1. $t Title. $n Lines 4,059-21,782
>At least that is the logical result of treating this work as a single poem by two authors.
>University of Washington Libraries
It is NOT a collaborative work. Its original form in NAF was as a title. The following two paragraphs are from my 2017 post:
*I don't see how even under AACR 2 the creation of the AAP for this work as a combination of the first author's name and the title was justified; see AACR 2 21.7B1. Under RDA, how could it be considered anything but a "Compilation of Works by Different Agents" (18.104.22.168)? "If the work is a compilation of works by different agents, construct the authorized access point representing the work by using the preferred title for the compilation (see 6.2.2)."
*Why was the AAP for this work changed from title only (as noted in the record, it was thus on the LC manual authority card; see NUC Pre-1956 Imprints and the older records in LC's own online catalog)? Why was this change made under AACR 2, and then confirmed as correct under RDA? I can only guess that the intent was to treat the work as one "produced by the collaboration of two or more persons" (AACR 2 21.6A) or one that "two or more agents are collaboratively responsible for creating" (RDA 22.214.171.124). But how can collaboration be a factor here, when the author of the second part was probably not even born when the first part was created?
Rare Materials Cataloger
Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints, and Photographs The New York Public Library Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
476 Fifth Avenue, Rm. 313, New York, NY 10018 nypl.org
My opinions, not NYPL's