[DCRB-L] Main entry for collectors

[Jain Fletcher]

Hello all,
   I think Beth has put together a good rationale here--it's the kind of 
thinking that people working on collections have to go through all the 
time. Not being an avid follower of APPM myself (in other words, I don't 
always do something just because APPM says so), when faced with such 
situations, I try to apply AACR2 concepts about main entry to them.  In 
that context, I have found that it is generally a combination (and 
weighting) of factors about each collection (and its known collector) that 
helps determine the placement of a collector's name in the record. 
Sometimes it's main entry, other times it's added entry.  The issue of 
concern that Deborah has described (where both the collector and the 
collection are quite well known) would almost always result in collector 
main entry in my own determination of the factors involved.  The only thing 
I can think of that would bump the collector into added entry status would 
be if the collection was a compilation of items *all* by the same 
author/composer/artist etc. (where I think the author's creative input 
would trump the collector's).
   But please note, the rule states that this is to be applied only for 
collections that are well known by their collector.  In cases where the 
collector's work is not known or less known, it should be quite sufficient 
to put the collector into a 7xx field, with $e collector.  Because 
(speaking about "advanced thinking"--even though this is a concept Dr. 
Svenonius had us consider years ago in cataloging class): with online 
catalogs, what does it really matter *where* the collector is placed in a 
record, as long as s/he is there?
   Just to put this a more concrete basis for people's consideration, I 
thought I'd put forth an example of a well-known collector's collection. 
For my own thinking of this issue, I simply put UCLA's Michael Sadleir 
collection of 19th century British fiction to the test.  (I'm pretty sure 
this is well known   ;-)    Now, if UCLA had not cataloged each book in 
this collection and instead had made a single collection record for it--or 
even If UCLA now decided to make an adjunct collection-level record to this 
collection--can anyone imagine *not* having Sadleir as the main entry?  For 
one (of course) there is the generic aspect that comes if entered only by 
its title: Collection of 19th century British fiction.  While it is fine to 
enter collections with a generic title (esp. when the collector is not 
known), isn't it true that this is quite a particular collection, put 
together by a known expert on the subject and therefore... (repeat m/e 
rationale here)?
   Thanks for asking Deborah (and editors).  I would love to hear about how 
this comes out.				--Jain



--On Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:22 PM -0500 Beth Russell 
<russell.363@osu.edu> wrote:

> Others more knowledgeable than myself have already described the
> importance of "collector" main entry. I don't know if my contribution is
> persuasive, but it is passionately held!
>
>  From a purely theoretical point of view, the "collector" is in fact, the
> CREATOR of the collection, which is the ITEM being cataloged. There is
> only one item being cataloged in a collection-level record (the
> collection) and if one individual is responsible for assembling its
> contents in its current state, this activity surely merits main entry, so
> long as we maintain the concept of main entry in our cataloging rules. If
> one were cataloging a scrapbook, for example, the compiler of the
> scrapbook would play the same role (and "deserve" main entry in the same
> way) although the individual components of the scrapbook (newspaper
> clippings, programs, photos, etc.) would have originated from many
> different sources (which might be traced themselves in 6xx or 7xx
> fields.)
>
> It also bears restating that both APPM rule 2.1A4 and our draft
> guidelines call for the addition of the term "collector" after the main
> entry in these cases, which should clarify the role for anyone who is
> perplexed in looking at these records. One would also hope there would be
> some explanatory note in the body of the collection record, if necessary.
> Perhaps in our discussion of field 545 (biographical or historical note)
> or 520 / 505 (summary or contents) we could provide an example to
> illustrate this, along the lines of my completely spontaneous italicized
> addition to the example below:
>
>
>
>
> 520     Consists principally of maps of the United States as a whole.
> Also includes maps of sections of the United States and individual states
> and cities, showing railroads or railroad related information. The
> collection was assembled by John Smith in the mid 19th century, and
> includes materials collected during his business travels. $b Includes
> some maps of London environs, western Canada, and Europe.
>
> Beth
>
>
> At 05:05 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
> Main entry for collection-level cataloging
>
>
>
> Once again, I apologize for forgetting to discuss the proposed DCRM(B)
> appendix on collection-level cataloging. The editors (John Attig, Bob
> Maxwell, Joe Springer, Manon Théroux, and me) did discuss it during our
> day and a half meeting after the conference in San Diego. The issue of
> collector main entry is one we would like to address sooner rather than
> later.
>
>
>
> I don't have the CSB on collection-level records in front of me, but
> whether or not I'm right in assuming that the instruction for giving the
> collector the main entry came from there, the editors need to be
> persuaded that this is appropriate for the cataloging of printed
> materials. Section D on "Elements of the catalog record", a) on 1XX
> field: Main entry heading starts out well by emphasizing that title main
> entry is appropriate for many collections, and for requiring that all
> items comprised by the collection record have the same personal or
> corporate authorship. This is in compliance with AACR2.
>
>
>
> We question the 2nd paragraph of section a) instructing that if a
> collection is known by the name of a collector, generally enter that name
> in a 1xx field. The editors are considering deleting that provision.
> Naturally in such a case, the collector may be entered in a 7xx field.
> Those of you with persuasive and/or passionate opinions please give us
> your best shot. To DCRB-L please, so everyone can participate in the
> discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________
>
> Deborah J. Leslie
>
> Folger Library
>
> djleslie@folger.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> Beth M. Russell
> Head, Special Collections Cataloging
> Assistant Professor
> The Ohio State University Libraries
> 1858 Neil Avenue Mall
> Columbus OH 43210-1286
> 614-247-7463
> FAX 614-292-2015
> russell.363@osu.edu
> ----------------------



Jain Fletcher
Head, Collections & Technical Services Division
Department of Special Collections
Young Research Library - UCLA
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA   90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr@library.ucla.edu