Print

Print


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 21.04.2015 um 21:00 schrieb Adam L. Schiff:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 
>> There is no reason why we cannot have an ordered list of equally responsible
>> creators where that is the case. But there is a difference between "first
>> named author" and "main entry" -- and although catalogers may be aware that
>> the main entry is often the first named author, the user looking at a library
>> catalog display can't be expected to know what it means that one and only one
>> author *heading* is listed with the short display. And, no, I don't think tha
t
>> the "statement of responsibility" explains all, even if it's in the display.
> 
> While the "main entry" usually begins with the first named creator, that is no
t
> always the case.  RDA 6.27.1.3 says that for collaborative works, the work is 
named

...

all rules cited allow only one responsible person and just give variations
on which is "first"...

These rules yield

Sullivan, Arthur, 1842-1900. Pirates of Penzance
(n 80/40729 which seems to be already revised for RDA) for something one
would expect under "Gilbert & Sullivan" or at least under "Gilbert, W. S."
since he is the first mentioned in "Gilbert & Sullivan". Only the third
option which comes to mind is that "Gilbert & Sullivan" should always
be pronounced "Sullivan & Gilbert" since composers have priority over
librettists ;-)

Maybe an even less satisfying case is that of the cooperations between
Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill, both of them had quite a career of their
own, but the Threepenny Opera to my knowledge really was created in true
cooperation (well, Brecht was already famous and Weill not so much).

The German Authority File GND goes as far as having two records for the
same entity:

Weill, Kurt: Die Dreigroschenoper < http://d-nb.info/gnd/300172559 >

(an instance of an opera, "established"[!] 1928) and according to the GND
a work based on

Brecht, Bertolt: Die Dreigroschenoper < http://d-nb.info/gnd/4195806-8 >

(a general "work" released (published?) 1928, debut performance 1928)

So what this is trying to tell me that there was a stageplay in 1928 which
in the same year was captured by Weill and turned into an opera? [Not quite,
Brecht released the text "as manuscript" in June 1928, rehearsals for
the performance started in August 1928)

For me these are examples of entities which go by many *names*, or at least
rather complex compound names like "Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of
Penzance" or "Die Dreigroschenoper von Brecht/Weill". Trying to reduce
the arbitraryness of these denotions (title first / creators first)
by synthesizing them from already normalized constituent elements in
a rule-driven process will invariably fail: Even constructions avoiding
the sillyness of ignoring one the two equal creators, e.g. "Brecht,
Bertolt & Weill, Kurt: Die Dreigroschenoper" or "Sullivan, Arthur,
1842-1900 &  Gilbert, William S. 1836-1911. The Pirates of Penzance" are
grossly overdetermined and might still struggle with the established
order of the creators.

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlU2rUgACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OqAwP+Mh0oLN2sIdsGHPGIbZQ64Hz0
2wUYLc4P0eScGf0Bbmpw6f4WF2/y8tek1G5w/qeWBtYUVV2KrQwi/DQJXru+gbe4
tcFFEQB9DvR6qdEnWT5FhSBFQ6NVQka629SqCCIVrJio/tzzLWXvoFBS2MK9+PuE
SIm0lPfoPt96t5Vg+G0=
=zCEv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----