The work does not meet the criteria in 126.96.36.199.1. for considering a corporate body to be the creator. It has nothing specifically to do with the Asociacion Medicos Descalzos. It’s about traditional concepts of mental and physical health in Maya culture and their relationship to the Maya calendar. Thus the exception in 188.8.131.52 does not apply.
When I said “There is nothing overt, in text or presentation, to indicate that the four individuals listed merely constitute a ‘roster’ of the Asociacion,” I just meant that there is nothing to suggest that the list of four people under the name of the corporate body is merely there to show who is part of the corporate body. They may be part of that body or they may not. The list suggests only that there are five entities responsible for the content, one of which happens to be a corporate body. None of the five names is given any prominence over any other in the presentation, other than by order of appearance.
If the first of the five names in the list is a corporate body, but 184.108.40.206.1 won’t allow that body to be treated as the creator, should the next name (an individual person) be treated as the creator instead and put in a 100?
I’m not sure it’s clear that the Asociacion cannot be the creator – although what I say below reflects the fact that I am not fluent in this language.
Your comment about the persons not merely constituting a roster makes me think that you are considering 220.127.116.11.1 type a) .
But the word “importancia” in the title would make me consider whether the work fits category b) “works that record the collective thought of the body (e.g., reports of commissions, committees; official statements of position on external policies, standards)”. Does the work contains recommendations, policy statements, or other content that can be thought of as “official statements of position”?
And of course, with the elimination of AACR2’s “rule of three”, it doesn’t matter that there is one corporate body and 3 persons.
Also, note the exception in 18.104.22.168, which I like to summarize as “if corporate creator-ship (we would have said ‘main entry’ under AACR2) is justified, it doesn’t matter that the creators are a mix (‘collaboration’) of persons and corporate bodies.” Or, “if it fits, it fits.”
Timothy J. Carlton
Cooperative and Instructional Programs (COIN)
Library of Congress
The views expressed here are my own and I do not speak officially for the Library of Congress.
I’ve got a question!
I’ve got a book called
Q’ij alaxik : la importancia de desarrolloar nuestras vocaciones para tener bienestar mental y una convivencia armonica con los demas.
On the title page verso is this statement:
Autores: Asociacion Medicos Descalzos
Cristina Chavez Alvarado
Felipe Pol Morales
Elvira Morales Panto
(Please forgive the lack of diacritics.)
The Asociacion cannot be a creator for this work, based on 22.214.171.124.1. Should I use Chavez in the 100, with the other three individuals as authors in 700, and the Asociacion as issuing body in 710? That’s what I’m thinking.
There is nothing overt, in text or presentation, to indicate that the four individuals listed merely constitute a “roster” of the Asociacion.