Thanks for the clarification about the piece in hand. My point was merely to consider whether it could be type B). (Type B generally pertaining to works OTHER THAN about the body itself; Type A “must deal with the body itself” – as you noted). “importancia” is one of those words that should suggest to LC catalogers that they should look deeper to see if it fits type b) -- which obviously you have done, and determined that it doesn’t.
(Admittedly, “importancia” is not as clear as “white paper”, “recommendations”, “policy statement”, etc., but it makes me at least think about it).
I pointed this out because in my years of teaching new and kinda’-new catalogers, I have found that the categories of corporate ‘main entry’/creatorship can be confusing. One example I have always used is “Library of Congress Filing Rules” by two prominently named personal authors; they want to ‘enter’ under the first person, but it clearly meets type A, so personal authorship does not trump that. Not exactly your situation, I realize – other side of the coin, in fact.
Generally, the ‘principal responsibility named first’ language of the Core statement of 19.2 would suggest that, NO, you would not devolve to the second named person for the 100 field (especially because there is at least some question as to their contributions; I’d be leery to say that it is principally the work of Chavez Alvarado). You can do whatever you think useful for the 700’s of course. Using the authorized forms, of course J
The work does not meet the criteria in 18.104.22.168.1. 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 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199.1 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 188.8.131.52.1 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 184.108.40.206, 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 220.127.116.11.1. 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.