 |
 |
I don't know. I'm confused. I find this particularly unhelpful, from 19.2.1.1 "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." And by FRBR. If the editor(s) is/are responsible for the creation of a work, are they creators? Or is it, as it was in AACR2, that editors can only be contributors? Help! Anne On 24/10/2012 14:34, "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >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 >