Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Rule 21.1B4 clarified (pt.1) Mitch Turitz 14 Dec 1992 19:04 UTC

Cross posted to AUTOCAT and SERIALST.  Please excuse the duplications.

In my previous posting regarding rule 21.1B4, I omitted the discussion
as to why it is being considered for deletion.  I realize now that it
should have been included for clarity, so here it is:

This started with a letter from Ben Tucker (of the Library of Congress)
sending a letter to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
(referred to as JSC).  The JSC code for the letter is 3JSC/LC/20.

"Rule 21.1B2 is very straight forward: enter a work under the heading
for corporate body from which the work emanates whenever the work falls
under one or more of the categories listed.  But 21.1B4 confuses the
situation considerably by sometimes requiring main entry under the
heading for the body whose work it is (the basic AACR2 corporate main
entry concept) and sometimes under the heading for the subordinate unit
which prepared the work for publication, depending upon where on the
item being cataloged the subordinate unit's name appeared.

  "For works issued in more than one edition or in more than one volume,
the placement of the subordinate unit's name on the item tends to change
from item to item.  Also, the name of the subordinate unit is often
subject to change (the subordinate unit reorganizes with a different
name, or the task of preparing the 21.1B2 work for publication has been
reassigned from one subordinate unit to another).

  "Because the subordinate unit is assigned the main entry when it is
named prominently, the change in the placement of the subordinate unit's
name or the change in name of the subordinate unit creates the problems
when multiple editions or multiple volumes are involved: successive
editions for monographs become scattered (21.3A1), bibliographic records
for multipart items must be adjusted (21.3A2), and multiple successive
entries for serials must be created (21.3B1).

   "To restore 21.1B2 to its original intent (enter a work under the
heading for the corporate body from which the work emanates whenever the
work falls under one or more of the categories listed), we propose
changing 21.1B4 to assign the main entry to the parent body in all
cases, with an added entry for the prominently-named subordinate unit."


  If a work falls into one or more of the categories given in 21.1B2 and
if a subordinate unit of a corporate doby is responsible or it, <delete
text which follows and replace with:> enter the work under the heading
for the parent body.  Make an added entry under the heading for the
subordinate unit if the name is stated prominently.

 -- Ben Tucker, March 12, 1991.

3JSC/LC/20/LC follow-up

Date: JUne 13, 1991
TO: Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
FROM: Ben Tucker, LC Representative
subject: Revision of rule 21.1B4

  "I apologize for not having made a clear exposition of the problem
that substantiates, even requires, the revision.  In the British
responses <not included here> there is the assumption that the problem
we have had is related to the question of form of headin for the bodies
involved, i.e. whether or not the subordinate body is entered
subordinately.  I hasten to assure you that this question is unrelated.
The problem arises equally in the cases in which the subordinate body is
entered subordinately and when it is entered independently.  Perhaps a
full description of the different problem we are addressing would be in

  "If a work emanates from a subordinate unit of a corporate body, and
that work fits one of the 21.1B2 categories for main entry under the
emanating body, the work is entered under the heading for the
subordinate unit.  It does not matter if the subordinate unit is entered
directly (24.12/24.17) or indirectly (24.13/24.18).

  "The situation 21.1B4 addresses is different.  Here the work emanates
from one body but another body has RESPONSIBILITY for it.  The current
text of 21.1B4 is extremely flawed in setting prominence and the
naming/not naming of the bodies' names in the chief source as the
criteria to govern the case.  Catalogers have wasted a good deal of time
tgrying to decipher the tortuous statements in 21.1B4, which we tried to
sort out in a rule interpretation.  The rule interpretation does not
depart from the substance of the rule, however, and so an unwanted
degree of concentration is still needed on the part of the cataloger.
Imagine how it is to have two or three such publications on your desk (a
frequent phenomenon when the cataloger is working with documents) and
these publications vary in placement of the two names, one giving both
names on the chief source, another giving only one name on the chief
cource, with in this case the second name either prominent or not: one
can never learn what to do and apply it.  Each time the rule/rule
interpretation must be read and reconsidered in light of the particular

  "It is also worth mentioning that the rule is flawed from a
theoretical point of view.  Throwing out the concept of responsibility
when formulating 21.1B2 and substituting the idea of emanation (cf.
Sumner Spalding's well considered article on this subject, in LRTS,
summer 1980), but puttiang responsibility back in 21.1B4 is
contradictory.  More importantly, the rule means that the cataloger no
longer tests the contents of the publication against the types mentioned
in 21.1B2; that rule is ignored in favor of the superficial and fugitive
evidence offered by presentation of name.  (Another way to say it is 'If
responsibility as stated in 21.1B4 is so wonderful as a means of
deciding on corporate main entry, why did we ever abandon it in

  "The second point behind our proposed revision is focused on the
results of applying this rule.  After going through the tortuous process
described, the cataloger uses the subordinate body in a certain number
of cases as the main entry heading.  this is normally an absurdity,
which is readily apparent by looking at almost any record vis-a-vis the
publication being cataloged.  Some of the annual reports of large bodies
are a good source, if you are interested: you will see the annual report
of Big Corporate Body X entered under the heading of some relatively
insignificant subordinate agency.  In the case of serials particularly
this has caused problems, as innumerable successive entries are
necessary due to the normally fugitive nature of these subordinate
bodies; they change their names from year to year, or are merged or
split.  Note that this concern for main entry heading is not fuelled by
emotion generated by particular cases, such as "The Annual report of the
Librarian of Congress," entered under the Library's Office of
Communications.  Rather, here is a whole class of corporate cases that
needs improbing (By 'improving', I mean equally having a more logical
approach and also speeding up the cataloger's work considerably.)  THE
BODY IS NAMED PROMINENTLY.  <emphasis mine -- Mitch>

  "If it can be considered that these statements substantiate the
problem and point to its proper solution, I suggest that with some
adjustment we adopt the wording in the Australian response
(3JSC/LC/20/Aus response), ...:

  "If a work falls into one or more of the categories given in 21.1B2,
and it involves a subordinate unit of a corporate body, apply the
following provisions:

     a) If the work emanates from the subordinate unit and reflects its
     politices, procedures, collective thought, etc., enter the work
     under the heading for the subordinate unit.

     b) If the work was prepared for publication on behalf of the parent
     body by the subordinate unit, enter the work under the heading for
     the parent body and make an added entry under the heading for the
     subordinate unit if the unit is named prominently in the item
     being cataloged.

-- Ben Tucker, June 13, 1991

(to be continued)
* 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:                  *

As usual, should you or any of your opinions
be caught or killed, the library will
disavow any knowledge of your actions.