Print

Print


I'm relieved that this is causing you problems too, Anne. Helen W. and I 
had lengthy discussion about it all before the e-forum and, as you've seen 
from discussions today, every time we think we've decided what we think, 
something comes along to confuse us again.

Celine

On Oct 24 2012, Welsh, Anne wrote:

>No, that's what's confusing me.
>
>I have this vague unsettling feeling that there is something important I
>am not finding when I am looking at the Toolkit.
>
>Alan; Gordon; please can you help?
>
>I'm really confused (and it seems others are too - or perhaps I'm just
>leading them astray, if so, sorry) about editors.
>
>Under 19.2.1.1 Can the editor of a book like our cloud computing and
>records management examples be a creator? Or is that rule solely for
>reworkings of other things (like a new selection of, say, Robert
>Browning's poetry)?
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 24/10/2012 15:03, "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>I think it is very confusing (confused?).
>>
>>Some of the examples given suggest that "an aggregate work" in this sense
>>might be (e.g.) a website created by one person out of existing material,
>>or
>>a collection of archival papers, or possibly conference papers ... or
>>several other things.
>>
>>But I'm not sure why these differ in principle from the editors of a
>>volume
>>of essays? 
>>
>>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 Welsh,
>>Anne
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 14:48
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
CÚline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR