Al Willis asked:
>Cataloging questions: Doesn't the OCLC record for the "Agnati" volume need a
>note and uniform-title entry to link it to the record(s) for the Meskimmon
>work?
I believe this would fall under AACR2 21.4C "Works erroneously or
fictitiously attributed to a person or corporate body." Meskimmon should be
the main entry (she is responsible for the intellectual content of the
book) and an added entry would be made for Agnati (unless she is not a real
person). If it were me, I would make a note explaining the situation:
"Unauthorized edition of <citation for the original Meskimmon work>." The
statement of responsibility transcribed would show that Agnati was given to
be the author. The rules don't specificially mention plagiarism --
"fictitiously attributed" is as close as it gets, and this can cover
situations where the author agreed or indeed desired a fictitious attribution.
>(As an aside, isn't it interesting that the two items have been
>classified differently, Meskimmon at N71 and "Agnati" at N8354?)
It's perfectly understandable. Both classification numbers are valid -- N71
puts the emphasis on the psychology of art and the artist (not limited to
women artists). N8354 puts the emphasis on women artists vis-a-vis art as a
profession. Subject analysis is, by definition, subjective... The records
in OCLC originated in different libraries with different catalogers, for
what it's worth.
Kay Teel
Serials Catalog Librarian and Cataloger for the Arts
Stanford University Libraries & Academic Information Resources
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]
|