Proposal: Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies (New 6.2.2.11)

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Proposal: Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies (New 6.2.2.11)

  1. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    This seems fine to me and a good clarification. I think Dave is right that this doesn’t make any changes to choice of preferred title or form of authorized access point.

    Bob

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    The new instruction in 6.2.2.11.1 uses similar language as in the current 6.2.2.2.10 — and that’s good.

    However, it calls into question whether 6.2.2.10 would benefit from a similar approach — including references to “collective titles” in resources embodying the compilation or in reference sources, and possibly more clearly identifying instructions for situations with & without collective titles in those cases too.

    Is it worth mentioning this in the ALA response?

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I haven’t made up my mind about this question yet, but another thing to consider as we think about wording is Kathy’s suggested “is commonly identified” for 6.2.2.10. If we like that wording there, we could also proposed it here.

    • John Myers says:

      Kathy’s question here seems to tie into the concerns raised by NLNZ in their proposal under 6JSC/Chair/15/rev/2 — when and when not to use the collective title in resources embodying the compilation (i.e. the collective title on such manifestations) vs. using a conventional collective title assigned by the cataloger. Further on, in the “decision tree,” Kathy makes a distinction between collective titles that are distinctive and those that are generic, as a rubric for using a collective title vs. a conventional collective title. Is that where we would like to head, both in this response and our response to Chair/15?

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    While I don’t object to the renaming of 6.27.4.4, it does make it very clear that there are no instructions for VAPs for compilations when the works aren’t by a single person, family, or corporate body. I suspect that’s OK, but I would like to know if any of you can think of situations where the lack of instructions along these lines would be a problem.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    While I generally support updating the Glossary definition for collective title, I’m not a big fan of what’s been proposed, since I think that definition 1 & 2 are not completely mutually exclusive. Is there some way to combine these back into a single definition? If not, then I think that definition #1 should mention the single person, family, or corporate body responsibility.

    The current RDA definition for collective title is based largely on the AACR2 definition — maybe it’s time to revisit this definition in general….

    Suggestions?

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I agree with Kathy that the proposed change to the glossary is problematic. The current definition is too tied to the resource and could be broadened to allow a title proper from a resource as well as a title listed in a reference source. I don’t see a need to make a distinction here between collective titles for compilations of works of a single PFC and those of multiple PFCs. Starting with the very basic pieces, could it be something like “A title of a compilation of two or more works?” I worry that including “used as the preferred title” makes it a little circular (that is, the glossary def. refers to the “preferred title” instructions, and the “preferred title” instructions refer to the glossary def.).

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change 1 (6.2.2.8): I support the change from “single” to “individual” & the creation of the new paragraph to “apply these additional instructions”

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Not exactly addressed here — but maybe this is the crux of the problem:

    What’s the difference between:
    1) a collective title that appears in resources embodying the work and/or in reference sources
    2) a conventional collective title devised by the cataloger

    When it is appropriate to assign #2 above?
    Should an approach that separates recording from constructing access points be taken here, in a similar fashion to what happened with 6JSC/Music/3 last year? Can conventional collective titles (mostly) be constructed based on the form of work recorded in RDA 6.3? (The obvious exception would be “works” — along with when to apply “selections”.)

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      OK, I’m backing away from that particular cliff now — works still will need a preferred title, and that can be a conventional collective title. The “record” instructions in Chapter 6 address this situation, although perhaps that can be clarified.

      It’s the application of those instructions in 6.27 [etc.] that might really be in question. However, that’s probably a discussion that should be part of the response to 6JSC/Chair/15/rev/2.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    As I’ve thought about this further today, I’m not sure this is the best approach.

    If there’s an established collective title for a compilation, I think that’s the preferred title whether or not the compilation contains works by a single person, family, or corporate body [PFC] or by several different PFCs.

    The exceptional treatment is to use a conventional collective title for a compilation of works by an individual PFC, if there’s no “established” collective title. So, that could be a subset of the general instructions about preferred titles for compilations.

    What’s missing (I think) are instructions for determining the preferred title for a compilation of works by different PFCs that lacks a collective title but has multiple titles proper, for each of the individual works. (That’s a different situation — maybe — from works that lack a title, which is the topic of 6JSC/LC/30.)

    • John Myers says:

      The instructions for “determining the preferred title for a compilation of works by different PFCs that lacks a collective title” are covered by the proposed 6.2.2.11.2?

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    Perhaps the following decision tree would be a good place to determine if the instructions need to be changed, reordered and/or supplemented.

    Decision #1: Is this a compilation? If yes,
    Decision #2: Does this compilation have a collective title?
    If yes, Decision 3: Is the title distinctive or generic?
    If distinctive, assess if the compilation has been known by more than 1 title. If not, you have your preferred title. If it has had more than 1 title, pick the most commonly used title, or if that’s not known, use the most recent [?] as the preferred title.
    If generic, the instructions differ based on whether the compilation is of works by 1 PFC or more than one PFC.
    If generic title for works by one PFC, use a conventional collective title. If necessary, apply the current 6.2.2.10.3, for other compilations of two or more works by one PFC.
    If generic title for works by more than one PFC, use the title from the resource.

    If Decision #2 = no, this does not have a collective title, then…
    Decision #4: Is the work by 1 PFC or more than one PFC?
    If 1 PFC, the use a conventional collective title.
    If more than 1 PFC, use either:
    Titles proper from resource, (instructions based on the current 6.2.2.10.3, but for more than 1 PFC) OR
    Devise a collective title

    This is a pretty substantial departure from RDA as currently written, and I think it’s too complex to propose as an alternative approach in the ALA response, since there’s very little time to work on developing this before the response deadline.

    However, I want to know from CC:DA if it would be worth pursuing this kind of reorganization for compilations, or not.

    If not, we need to return to discussing the merits of the proposal as written. If you do support developing RDA along these lines, then our response can say so, along with volunteering ALA to work on this for 2015 — if the JSC agrees, of course.

    • Tina Shrader says:

      I think this approach would make sense. To me, this decision tree follows the thought process involved in cataloging these items in a more natural way than the current instructions do, and I think it would reduce redundancy in the instructions and the potential for inconsistency in treatment between multiply authored compilations and compilations with one author.

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        I’m reluctant. I think the most natural thing to determine right off the bat when you are cataloging a compilation is whether you’ve got one PFC or multiple PFCs. Maybe it’s just because it’s what I’m used to, but I would prefer to retain the structure of separate instructions based on whether you’ve got one PFC or more than one. Then, once you have chosen one instruction or the other, it’s easier to comprehend what the instruction is telling you to do with the title, through the lens of one PFC vs. multiple PFCs.

        • Kathy Glennan says:

          Tracey, just to make sure…
          You’d prefer parallel instructions for one PFC vs. more than on PFC.

          Following that line of thought, I think they’d need to be laid out in a similar fashion — something like:
          1. collective title
          a. distinctive
          b. generic
          2. no collective title
          3. no title

          I’ll see if I can play with this a bit more tomorrow.

          • Kathy Glennan says:

            OK, here’s an outline of a different decision tree, with the primary focus being on the number of PFCs involved in the compilation:

            Decision #1: Is this a compilation? If yes,
            Decision #2: Are the works by one PFC, or by more than one PFC? [these would have separate sub-instructions]
            Under each category in #2: [these would appear separately under the appropriate category based on the answer to #2]
            a. Distinctive collective title? (Use it — may need sub-instructions about picking one if the work has been known by more than one)
            b. Generic collective title?
            – for 1 PFC: use conventional collective title
            – for more than 1 PFC: use titles & SoR from resource
            c. No collective title?
            – for 1 PFC: use conventional collective title
            – for more than 1 PFC: use either titles & SoR from source OR devise a collective title
            d. No title (see Works without Titles)

          • John Myers says:

            I think the challenge here is that there is no conventional collective title to apply to a compilation of works by more than one PFC. As a result, there is no differentiation between the distinctive and generic case for compilations by more than one PFC with a collective title. Consequently, the first determination must be between the case of one PFC or more than one PFC as Tracey articulates. It is not possible to construct the sets of rules for those two cases with strict parallelism though, since conventional collective titles are not available as a naming convention for compilations by more than one PFC.

          • John Myers says:

            Here’s the decision/process tree I see in the current RDA text with LC/29
            Individual or Compilation?
            — Individual: See 6.2.2.4 (>1500) or 6.2.2.5 (< 1501)
            — Compilation: See 6.2.2.10 (1 PFC) or 6.2.2.11 (>1 PFC)

            —- For compilation by one PFC, is it “known by a title” (i.e. has a [distinct?] collective title?) or not
            —— If “known”: See 6.2.2.4 or 6.2.2.5
            —— Otherwise, is the compilation complete or not:
            ——– If complete: See 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.2 (conventional collective titles)
            ——– If not complete: See 6.2.1 (individual component titles)
            ———- Option: [Form]. Selections

            —- For compilation by more than 1 PFC, does the compilation have or does it lack a collective title?
            —— Has collective title: See 6.2.2.11.1 (refers to 6.2.2.4-6.2.2.5)
            —— Lacks collective title: See 6.2.1 (individual component titles)
            ——– Option: Devised descriptive title

          • John Myers says:

            The question then is, does this decision/process tree work for us? Or do we see the need for further modification beyond what LC/29 proposes? I can see that it fairly corresponds to what we do. But can it be better (in particular, the whole “known by a title” issue that NLNZ raised and that Kathy alludes to)? Is it necessary to address those prospective improvements now? I confess, my mind is in a fine fettle between LC/29 and LC/30. I wouldn’t mind letting the dust settle before seeking further changes.

Leave a Reply