19.2 is all about recording CREATORS though. So is about place in RDA too.
Perhaps it only means when an editor is effectively acting to select
already published materials, though, as in a new selection of poems. But
if so, that's bonkers on the basis of orginal creative contribution to the
WORK!!!
Anne
On 24/10/2012 14:46, "Helen Williams" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Nick
>
>I agree with what you're saying.
>
>I also still find myself wondering what RDA means when it says (19.2)
>
>A person, family, or corporate body responsible for compiling an
>aggregate work may be considered to be a creator of the compilation if
>the selection, arrangement, editing, etc., of content for the
>compilation effectively results in the creation of a new work.
>
>I wonder if it's 'creator of compilation' instead of 'editor of
>compilation' that's making this confusing?
>
>Helen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slough, Nick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 24 October 2012 14:35
>To: Williams,HK; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>I see that it can be difficult to tell how involved the "editors" have
>been with the creation of the intellectual content of a resource, but
>would the editors of a volume of essays not usually fit this description
>
>
>"editor of compilation A person, family, or corporate body contributing
>to an expression of a collective or aggregate work by selecting and
>putting together works, or parts of works, by one or more creators. The
>editor of compilation may also be involved in elucidating the content,
>e.g., adding an introduction, notes, or other critical matter, of the
>compilation"
>
>And so be contributors with the relationship designator "editor of
>compilation"?
>
>
>
>Nick Slough
>Assistant Librarian
>Bibliographical Services Section
>City of London Libraries, Archives and Guildhall Art Gallery Guildhall
>Library Aldermanbury London EC2V 7HH
>Tel: 020 7332 1093
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/libraries
>
>Follow us on Twitter
>Read our blog
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen
>Williams
>Sent: 24 October 2012 14:20
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>Agreed - Very very tricky
>
>Anne, what you are saying about the editors having more responsibility
>than simply arranging work, makes me veer back to wondering whether they
>should be creators, where as before lunch I was veering towards editors
>as contributors!
>Lack of sufficient information to make correct judgements could be a
>real problem. And I can see different institutions making different
>judgements quite easily on this kind of issue.
>
>Gordon, in your role as JSC rep, is this the kind of issue you could ask
>for more clarification on, or is it really down to interpretation?
>
>Helen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anne
>Welsh
>Sent: 24 October 2012 13:42
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>I think this is an interesting point. It can be difficult to know the
>level of contribution someone makes from the statement on the title
>page.
>
>Many editors in books of the kind Facet publishes are responsible for
>far more than arranging others' work. They may well have come up with
>the concept for the book, pitched it to the publisher, commissioned the
>chapter authors (sometimes offering a very specific brief, which
>includes intellectual content), "tidied up" the material the chapter
>authors send and so on and so forth. It's difficult to know where, in
>Darnton's communication cycle, this type of editor fits. And
>questionable whether cataloguers have sufficient information to make a
>judgment in each case.
>
>Tricky, veeeery tricky.
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 24/10/2012 13:04, "Helen Doyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>A 20.2 contributor seems to me to be more concerned with bringing the
>>Expression into being in whatever form it takes (RDA 20.2.1.1), whereas
>
>>a
>>19.2 creator creates original work in the first place. If editors are
>>(effectively) arranging chapters written by other people, then I would
>>view them as contributors, rather than creators.
>>
>>I guess it depends how much original input the editors have.
>>
>>HelenD.
>>
>>
>>
>>Helen Doyle
>>Assistant Librarian
>>
>>Royal Academy of Dance
>>36 Battersea Square
>>London
>>SW11 3RA
>>0207 326 8032
>>
>>
>>>>> Helen Williams <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 12:32 pm >>>
>>I thought we were at the Work level because an aggregate work had been
>>compiled which effectively resulted in the creation of a new work. What
>
>>do others think?
>>
>>
>>
>>Also, although in MARC the editors would go in 700 fields, in the
>>non-MARC format, do people see them fitting in 19.2 creator (which is
>>where I ended up putting them) or 20.2 contributor?
>>
>>I was rather unsure about this.
>>
>>Helen
>>
>>
>>
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Freedman, Vanessa
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:27
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>
>>
>>Or are the individual chapters "expressions" and the compilation a
>>"manifestation" (still can't get my head round FRBR)?
>>
>>
>>
>>Vanessa
>>
>>
>>
>>Vanessa Freedman
>>
>>Hebrew & Jewish Studies Librarian
>>
>>UCL Library Services
>>
>>University College London
>>
>>Gower Street
>>
>>London WC1E 6BT
>>
>>
>>
>>Tel: +44 (0) 20 7679 2598 (Internal ext. 32598)
>>
>>Fax: +44 (0) 20 7679 7373
>>
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/library
>>
>>
>>
>>**Please remember the environment and only print this if necessary**
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Amies, Paul
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:09
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>
>>
>>I used "compiler", although looking now at the definition of a compiler
>
>>that doesn't seem quite right.
>>
>>I think I was determined to select something from I.2 (associated with
>>work) as it didn't seem right to use something from I.3 (associated
>>with an expression), as surely we are at the level of "work" here?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Paul Amies
>>
>>Cataloguer
>>
>>UCL Library Services
>>
>>University College London
>>
>>Gower Street
>>
>>London
>>
>>WC1E 6BT
>>
>>
>>
>>Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 2204 (Internal ext: 32204)
>>
>>
>>
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Helen Williams
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:03
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>
>>
>>Looking at the notes in Debbie's record has reminded me of a good point
>
>>to make on this record - in all the records I've looked at so far I
>>think we've all made the decision to enter all 4 editors, rather than
>>use the option to abridge.
>>
>>
>>
>>Also, what do people think about relationship designators here. I was
>>unsure whether to use editor, or editor of compilation.
>>
>>
>>
>>Helen
>>
>>
>>
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Helen Williams
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:00
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>
>>
>>Let's kick off discussion of record 4 before lunchtime.
>>
>>
>>
>>Did anyone else add a related work for 'In series: Principles and
>>practice in records management and archives'
>>
>>I wasn't quite sure how to format this either.
>>
>>
>>
>>Helen
>>
>>
>>
>>Helen Williams
>>
>>Assistant Librarian, Bibliographic Services
>>
>>
>>
>>LSE Library Services
>>
>>The London School of Economics and Political Science
>>
>>10 Portugal Street
>>
>>London WC2A 2HD
>>
>>
>>
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>020 7955 7234
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>
>>
>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>
>>
>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>
>>
>>
>
>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
>
>THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
>PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
>copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
>delete this e-mail. Opinions, advice or facts included in this message
>are given without any warranties or intention to enter into a
>contractual relationship with the City of London unless specifically
>indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City
>of London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is purely
>personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London. All e-mail
>through the City of London's gateway is potentially the subject of
>monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is excluded. Please
>note that in so far as the City of London falls within the scope of the
>Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information
>Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose this e-mail. Website:
>http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
>
>
>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
>
>
|