Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Rule 21.1B4 clarified (pt.2) Mitch Turitz 14 Dec 1992 20:09 UTC

This is cross posted to AUTOCAT and SERIALST.  I apologize for the
This is part 2 of the background discussion (3JSC/LC/20) on revision of
rule 21.1B4.

TO:      Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR
FROM:    Pat Oddy, British Library
SUBJECT: Revision of rule 21.1B4
DATE:    30 September, 1991

"... It seems to me now that the use of the word 'responsibility' in
21.1B4 is at the root of the difficulties.  I believe that we in the
British Library have not been interpreting 'responsibility' in the sense
apparent in the LC document, but rather in the sense of 'responsible for
its emanation'.  In this way we are happily able to enter works
emanating from a body and falling into the categories at 21.1B2 under
that body, whether it is or is not 'subordinate', WITH THE ADDED FACTOR
at 21.1B4 that if the emanating body is not stated prominently, and if
it is a subordinate body, entry is under the parent body.

  "Having now been made aware of the implications of other
interpreations of 'responsibility' I accept the need to do something
with 21.1B4.  It is interesting to see, however that whilst introduction
of the revised wording in 3JSC/LC/20/LC follow-up removes the ambiguity
over use of the word 'responsible' and ensures that works are entered
under the corporate bodies responsible for them, it also removes the
ability to enter under a parent body a work which emanates from a
subordinate unit not prominently named, or without a name.  Do we want
to retain this facility?

  "We need to think carefully about the cases where 21.1B4 is actually
of value, because what it is doing is setting aside the provisions of
the general rule and saying that regardless of the fact that this item
emanates from a corporate body and falls into one of the categories at
21.1B2, enter it under the heading for another corporate body because
the corporate body 'responsible' is not named prominently.  Looked at in
this way, it seems obvious that the only time when it would really be
sensible to apply this rule is when the subordinate body is ENTERED
subordinately.  This is an unwritten subtext to the rule which would of
course be extremely difficult to word clearly to achieve the desired

  "Prominence of statement of responsibility is not an issue in deciding
entry, whether corporate or personal.  for corporate body main entry,
all that maters is 1) emanation and 2) that the work falls into the
categories at 21.1B2.  To introduce idduse of 'prominence' and
'subordination', not to mention 'responsibility', seens to me to provide
no real benefit and, indeed to have substantial disadvantages by
hindering clear and consistent application of the general rule.

  "In considering revision of 21.1B4, two issues are involved.  Firstly,
how do we remove the abmiguity regarding use of the word 'responsible'
so as to ensure that works are entered under the body from which they
emanate, and secondly, do we wish to continue to be able to enter works
which emanate from a subordinate unit not named prominently under the
parent body.  If the answer to the second question is 'No', we suggest
that 21.1B4 should in fact be deleted rather than revised, leaving
21.1B2 and 21.1B3 to handle all cases, including the provision of an
added entry for a prominently named subordinate body responsible for the
preparation of the work for publication by means of 21.30E1.

--Pat Oddy, British Library, 30  September, 1991


I have not reproduced all the responses to this subject, but the
discussion seems to say that rule 21.1B4 might profitably be deleted.
The suggestion is that the main impact of deleting the fule would be
that fact that we no longer could enter the parent body of those
publications that emanate from a non-prominent subordinate body.

The Task force on Rule 21.1B4 feels that deleting rule 21.1B4 is a more
logical approach to entry under corporate body and eliminates the
unnecessary complication of entry under a "prominently" named
subordinate body which it introduces.  If the rule were deleted,
catalogers would decide to enter a work under a parent or subordinate
body if the work emanates from that body and falls into one or more of
the categories in 21.1B2.  they would then make added entries under
prominently named corporate bodies under rule 21.1B3.

"We feel that eliminating rule 21.1B4 clarifies the situations described
above: enter a work under the corporate body if it emanates from the
body and falls into one or more of the categories in 21.1B2.
   Eliminating rule 21.1B4 would simplify catalogers' work in situations
where placement of the subordinate body's name changes from edition to
edition or volume to volume in a multipart item.  Also because the names
of subordinate bodies frequently change as large corporate bodies and
governments reorganize, eliminating the rule would reduce the number of
successive main entry changes which must be created for serials."

  -- Lee Leighton, Chair,Task Force on Rule 21.1B4, Draft report.


Crystal Graham cited the following example:

OCLC# 3212115

110 1   Colombia.
245 10  Estadistica fiscal y administrativa / $c Contraloria General de
la Republica, Direccion Nacional de Estadistica.
260     Bogota : $b Editorial Minerva, S.A.,
300     v.
310     Annual
362 1   Began in 1933.
500     "Anexo al Informe financiero del Contralor."
500     Description based on: 1940.
550     Issued 1933 by Departamento de Contraloria; 19  -    by:
Contraloria General de la Republica; <1940> by: Contraloria General de
la Republica, Direccion Nacional de Estadistica.
580     1933-37 issued by: Departamento de Contraloria as Anexo 3 to its
Informe financiero.
710 10  Colombia. $b Departamento de Contraloria.
710 10  Colombia. $b Contraloria General de la Republica.
710 10  Colombia. $b Direccion Nacional de Estadistica.
787 1   Colombia.  Departamento de Contraloria.  $t Informe financiero.
Anexo 3
890     Colombia.  Contraloria General de la Republica.  Estadistica
fiscal y administrativa

Crystal comments:
"The agency issuing the report changes 3 times, each given an added
entry.  If abolition of 21.1B4 would mean we would no longer enter under
Colombia, I would not favor abolishing the rule, not because I'm too
lazy to make successive entries but because the work deals with the
country as a whole, not the specific office issuing the report."

I think I agree with Crystal, in that in the above example we would
still have Colombia as the main entry and just make added entries for
the variations in the subordinate body.  I believe that the intent is
not to eliminate "proper" successive entry, but to eliminate
"unnecessary" successive entry.

Comments welcome!

* 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.