Print

Print


Panizzi was working with physical records, and now with linked data, there should be fewer restrictions technologically to preclude providing multiples, order and/or importance, or anything else in authority. The trick would be bringing current records to that point absent the critical reasoning--in case that wasn't already obvious.

-Bruce

Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
U.S.A
tel. +1(617) 495-1241
fax +1(617) 496-4636

On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Adam, I think what you have demonstrated here is the difference between the act of cataloging and the resulting catalog data. The catalog data encodes the selected main creator and any secondary creators or contributors, but there is nothing in that data to provide evidence as to why the decision was made - e.g. if it was the order of the authors or the prominence of one author's name on the title page. If I show you a catalog record for a book you have never seen, you probably could not tell me what cataloging rule was used or what decision was made. Which is fine unless that information is essential for understanding the resulting catalog record.

Any information that is essential for the functionality of the catalog must be made explicit in the coding of the data. Any information that is not coded is not available to the developers of systems nor to the user of the catalog. In that sense, for the current discussion, the cataloging rules are only relevant to the extent that they can be understood from the resulting record. I am NOT saying that the decisions made by catalogers are not important -- what you describe below is essential for the consistency of data across libraries -- but no actions can be taken on machine-readable data except where the information is explicitly coded in the record itself.

So the question then becomes, of the information you give below, what is essential for the functionality of the catalog data once it is created? Or, to put it more bluntly, what do you want systems to do with the information you have given here? Then, once that has been clarified, the next question is: how can it be coded in the machine-readable data so that its meaning is clear?

kc

On 4/21/15 12:00 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
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 that 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 not always the case.  RDA 6.27.1.3 says that for collaborative works, the work is named

by combining (in this order): a) the authorized access point representing the person, family, or corporate body with principal responsibility
b) the preferred title for the work

If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies are represented as having principal responsibility for the work, construct the authorized access point representing the work by combining (in this order):
a) the authorized access point representing the first-named of those persons, families, or corporate bodies
b) the preferred title for the work

However, RDA notes that the entity with principal responsibility may not necessarily be the first named entity.

6.27.1.3 goes on further to say:

If principal responsibility for the work is not indicated, construct the authorized access point representing the work by combining (in this order):
a) the authorized access point representing the first-named person, family, or corporate body
b) the preferred title for the work


There are works in which the principal responsibility is indicated by means of typography rather than by the order of the names in a statement of responsibility.  RDA 6.27.1.3 has one such example:

Bishop, Henry R. (Henry Rowley), 1786–1855. Faustus
Resource described: Faustus : a musical romance / composed by T. Cooke, Charles E. Horn, and Henry R. Bishop. Bishop's name is given typographic prominence, appearing in all uppercase letters and in a larger and different typeface from that of the others


Adam

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600