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.