I would consider the title proper to be "Correspondance, 1944-1959" with the dates as part of the title (following the title proper example in RDA 2.3.2.6.2 of "English history, 1914-1945").


That title is unique so technically it could be the work AAP just as is, but RDA 6.27.1.9 says to add additional elements to the AAP if it is the same or *similar* to another AAP so I would include additional elements (looking in OCLC there are a lot of similar titles).  I like including the two principal authors in the compilation in the AAP so I would do this: 


Correspondance, 1944-1959 (Camus and Casarès)

The authority record for the work would look something like this:

130 _0 Correspondance, 1944-1959 (Camus and Casarès)
381 __ Camus and Casarès
500 1_ $i Author: $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960 $w r
500 1_ $i Author: $a  Casarès, Maria $w r

--Ryan


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 7:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès
 
I agree with what's been said, but I'm curious--what would the compilation work's AAP be? We'll presumably need that if the compilation gets translated.

Stephen

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Finnerty, Ryan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Kate,

 

Thanks for your reply, this is very helpful!

 

--Ryan

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Policy and Standards Division
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès

 

Ryan,

 

If two people are writing a letter or letters together, it can be considered a collaborative work. I have never had this situation in cataloging, but my mom and dad used to send me letters like that so I would never say never.  When two people are writing back and forth to each other and the book contains many of those letters, it is considered a compilation of two compilations of the works of one creator.  Assuming that the book contains letters written by Camus AND letters written by Casarès, you would probably want to have analytical added entries for both like this:

 

700 12 $a CasareÌs, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections.

700 12 $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections.

 

There would be no 100, but you might need a 130.  You might also need other additions in those 700s like $l English.  I did not look at the bibliographic record so I don’t know what else might be needed.

 

I have seen books that contain letters written only by Person A to Person B and not vice versa.  In that case it is appropriate for Person A to be considered the creator of the work because Person A is the writer of all the letters.  Then you would probably have a 100 for Person A and a 240 with a conventional collective title.  Person B might be in a 700.  It is difficult to tell from the titles what the situation is.  Just because there are two people’s names in the title doesn’t mean that two people have written the letters.  Your example is more clear because they are given in the statement of responsibility.

 

Kate

 

Kate James

Policy and Standards Division

Library of Congress

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Finnerty, Ryan
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 5:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès

 

Hello PCC List,

 

Gallimard recently published the correspondence between Albert Camus and Maria Casarès. The book contains letters written by each of them.

 

Correspondance : 1944-1959 / Albert Camus, Maria Casarès

9782072746161

OCLC# 1010979515

 

The OCLC record is coded as RDA and it has Camus in the 100 field. In order for Camus to properly be in the 100 field, this would need to be considered a collaborative work (RDA 6.27.1.3).

 

I’m more of the view that this is a compilation by two different authors since (in my view anyway) each letter can stand on its own as a separate work. If this is the case, then this should be entered under title according to RDA 6.27.1.4.

 

I looked in OCLC for other RDA records for correspondence and have seen them cataloged both ways with no one way predominating.

 

What do you all think? Should collections of correspondence between two different people be considered collaborative works or compilations?

 

Thanks for your advice!

 

Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database and Authorities Management & NACO Coordinator 

UC San Diego Library | 9500 Gilman Drive | La Jolla, CA 92093 | MC 0175-K

T: 858.822.3138[log in to unmask]

 

 




--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242