This is cross posted to AUTOCAT and SERIALST. I apologize for the duplication. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is part 2 of the background discussion (3JSC/LC/20) on revision of rule 21.1B4. TO: Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR FROM: Pat Oddy, British Library SUBJECT: Revision of rule 21.1B4 DATE: 30 September, 1991 "... It seems to me now that the use of the word 'responsibility' in 21.1B4 is at the root of the difficulties. I believe that we in the British Library have not been interpreting 'responsibility' in the sense apparent in the LC document, but rather in the sense of 'responsible for its emanation'. In this way we are happily able to enter works emanating from a body and falling into the categories at 21.1B2 under that body, whether it is or is not 'subordinate', WITH THE ADDED FACTOR at 21.1B4 that if the emanating body is not stated prominently, and if it is a subordinate body, entry is under the parent body. "Having now been made aware of the implications of other interpreations of 'responsibility' I accept the need to do something with 21.1B4. It is interesting to see, however that whilst introduction of the revised wording in 3JSC/LC/20/LC follow-up removes the ambiguity over use of the word 'responsible' and ensures that works are entered under the corporate bodies responsible for them, it also removes the ability to enter under a parent body a work which emanates from a subordinate unit not prominently named, or without a name. Do we want to retain this facility? "We need to think carefully about the cases where 21.1B4 is actually of value, because what it is doing is setting aside the provisions of the general rule and saying that regardless of the fact that this item emanates from a corporate body and falls into one of the categories at 21.1B2, enter it under the heading for another corporate body because the corporate body 'responsible' is not named prominently. Looked at in this way, it seems obvious that the only time when it would really be sensible to apply this rule is when the subordinate body is ENTERED subordinately. This is an unwritten subtext to the rule which would of course be extremely difficult to word clearly to achieve the desired result. "Prominence of statement of responsibility is not an issue in deciding entry, whether corporate or personal. for corporate body main entry, all that maters is 1) emanation and 2) that the work falls into the categories at 21.1B2. To introduce idduse of 'prominence' and 'subordination', not to mention 'responsibility', seens to me to provide no real benefit and, indeed to have substantial disadvantages by hindering clear and consistent application of the general rule. "In considering revision of 21.1B4, two issues are involved. Firstly, how do we remove the abmiguity regarding use of the word 'responsible' so as to ensure that works are entered under the body from which they emanate, and secondly, do we wish to continue to be able to enter works which emanate from a subordinate unit not named prominently under the parent body. If the answer to the second question is 'No', we suggest that 21.1B4 should in fact be deleted rather than revised, leaving 21.1B2 and 21.1B3 to handle all cases, including the provision of an added entry for a prominently named subordinate body responsible for the preparation of the work for publication by means of 21.30E1. --Pat Oddy, British Library, 30 September, 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have not reproduced all the responses to this subject, but the discussion seems to say that rule 21.1B4 might profitably be deleted. The suggestion is that the main impact of deleting the fule would be that fact that we no longer could enter the parent body of those publications that emanate from a non-prominent subordinate body. The Task force on Rule 21.1B4 feels that deleting rule 21.1B4 is a more logical approach to entry under corporate body and eliminates the unnecessary complication of entry under a "prominently" named subordinate body which it introduces. If the rule were deleted, catalogers would decide to enter a work under a parent or subordinate body if the work emanates from that body and falls into one or more of the categories in 21.1B2. they would then make added entries under prominently named corporate bodies under rule 21.1B3. "We feel that eliminating rule 21.1B4 clarifies the situations described above: enter a work under the corporate body if it emanates from the body and falls into one or more of the categories in 21.1B2. Eliminating rule 21.1B4 would simplify catalogers' work in situations where placement of the subordinate body's name changes from edition to edition or volume to volume in a multipart item. Also because the names of subordinate bodies frequently change as large corporate bodies and governments reorganize, eliminating the rule would reduce the number of successive main entry changes which must be created for serials." -- Lee Leighton, Chair,Task Force on Rule 21.1B4, Draft report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Graham cited the following example: OCLC# 3212115 110 1 Colombia. 245 10 Estadistica fiscal y administrativa / $c Contraloria General de la Republica, Direccion Nacional de Estadistica. 260 Bogota : $b Editorial Minerva, S.A., 300 v. 310 Annual 362 1 Began in 1933. 500 "Anexo al Informe financiero del Contralor." 500 Description based on: 1940. 550 Issued 1933 by Departamento de Contraloria; 19 - by: Contraloria General de la Republica; <1940> by: Contraloria General de la Republica, Direccion Nacional de Estadistica. 580 1933-37 issued by: Departamento de Contraloria as Anexo 3 to its Informe financiero. 710 10 Colombia. $b Departamento de Contraloria. 710 10 Colombia. $b Contraloria General de la Republica. 710 10 Colombia. $b Direccion Nacional de Estadistica. 787 1 Colombia. Departamento de Contraloria. $t Informe financiero. Anexo 3 890 Colombia. Contraloria General de la Republica. Estadistica fiscal y administrativa Crystal comments: "The agency issuing the report changes 3 times, each given an added entry. If abolition of 21.1B4 would mean we would no longer enter under Colombia, I would not favor abolishing the rule, not because I'm too lazy to make successive entries but because the work deals with the country as a whole, not the specific office issuing the report." I think I agree with Crystal, in that in the above example we would still have Colombia as the main entry and just make added entries for the variations in the subordinate body. I believe that the intent is not to eliminate "proper" successive entry, but to eliminate "unnecessary" successive entry. Comments welcome! ********************************************** * Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian * * San Francisco State University Library * * 1630 Holloway Ave., S.F., CA 94132 * * Voice: (415) 338-7883 FAX: (415) 338-6199 * * Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu * ********************************************** As usual, should you or any of your opinions be caught or killed, the library will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
