Karen said:

>There is no reason why we cannot have an ordered list of equally 
>responsible creators where that is the case.
It seems to me the need for citations, such as in footnotes and
bibliographies, would be a reason to have a single most responsible
person or body named (apart from title main entry for materials of
mixed responsibility such as encyclopedias, serials, and films).  
Library practices should not be divorced from the larger bibliographic
universe, nor our traditions dating from Panizzi.

AAP and main entry may differ, so Bibframe needs the distinction.

Main entry may not be first named person, e.g., interviews, criminal
transcripts, collections, and now with RDA later editions retaining
the AAP of an earlier edition.

The rule of three had its advantages, allowing responsible persons
over three to have the same status.

Kate has it right I think.

Back to the original remark that work title would be taken from 245$a;
the work title for 245 10 $aShakespear's Hamlet, should be Hamlet, not
the 245$a.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________