Adventures in Cataloging, the latest update
When cataloging an item for a library, you're not just creating a description of its physical and intellectual contents, you're also establishing access points for a library patron to find that item. A large chapter of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2 -- we're on the second edition) is dedicated to selecting the access points for any given work, and which should be made the main entry, with all the others as added entries to access the record.
For books, 9 times out of 10, the main entry will be the first author listed. (That 10th time will be a book without an author listed, or a few other odd situations.) Seems logical enough so far? Added entries would then be the title, the subject headings, and any additional authors or names on the title page, or the series information. Still sensible, right?
*sigh*
Translations of nonfiction are cataloged by the original author, with the original-language title included in the record as the "uniform title" of the work so that all the translations in the catalog can be grouped together by the UT. Adaptations are treated as original work by the adapter -- though the source material may be mentioned in a catalog note or an added entry.
Still with me? Good.
So, late 1700s, the Chassidic Rabbi Nachman of Bretslav wrote a collection of parables, which he titled Sipurei Ma'asiyot in Hebrew. This collection of stories was adapted into German in 1920 by Martin Buber.
Why do I mention this? because I got to catalog a copy the other day.
As I looked through the multiple catalog records for the book -- different editions, different cataloging languages, each with its own record -- my first complaint was that of any three I picked, no two would agree on placing Nachman or Buber as Main Entry. Even more fun, the Library of Congress had multiple records with each as Main Entry (also multiple forms of Nachman's name).
GRIPE THE FIRST: when cataloging, pay attention to the existing records....and the damn cataloging rules. The purpose of the catalog is to collocate items by title and/or author and/or subject matter; arbitrarily deciding who the author is does not help in the slightest.
I finally find a record to work from, just needing to list Buber as main entry and Nachman as added, and look in the U of I catalog....*cringe* 4 copies of the English translation: 2 in 834 (German literature -- and yes, it's a nonstandard Dewey number, U of I has a home-made literature classification scheme) listing Buber as main entry...and 2 in 296 (Judaism) listing Nachman as main entry. I can understand that Buber has multiple spots in Dewey -- 100s for philosophy, 200s for religion and you can argue 830s for German literature...but simply having the word "stories" in the title does not force the shelving of the book in literature. Part of being a cataloger, especially in Dewey, is assigning a number to a book based on where patrons will most likely be looking for it, which would be in the 100 or 200 range for this one, in my humble unbiased opinion.
GRIPE THE SECOND: When adding records to your system catalog, PUT THE NEW COPIES WITH THE OLD ONES.
So I go into the stacks, retrieve the two shelved in religion to recatalog them...and find that the catalog records cite Nachman's original work as the Uniform Title. *shakes head* An English translation of a German adaptation of a Hebrew original is NO LONGER CONNECTED to the original. Been part of cataloging principles for the past 30+ years. At least I managed to correct the mistakes of catalogers past this time, editing the record for the two translated volumes and re-classifying them, along with the German copy, to 296.833 (Chasidism). The two in 834 I'm leaving for someone else. *sigh*
For books, 9 times out of 10, the main entry will be the first author listed. (That 10th time will be a book without an author listed, or a few other odd situations.) Seems logical enough so far? Added entries would then be the title, the subject headings, and any additional authors or names on the title page, or the series information. Still sensible, right?
*sigh*
Translations of nonfiction are cataloged by the original author, with the original-language title included in the record as the "uniform title" of the work so that all the translations in the catalog can be grouped together by the UT. Adaptations are treated as original work by the adapter -- though the source material may be mentioned in a catalog note or an added entry.
Still with me? Good.
So, late 1700s, the Chassidic Rabbi Nachman of Bretslav wrote a collection of parables, which he titled Sipurei Ma'asiyot in Hebrew. This collection of stories was adapted into German in 1920 by Martin Buber.
Why do I mention this? because I got to catalog a copy the other day.
As I looked through the multiple catalog records for the book -- different editions, different cataloging languages, each with its own record -- my first complaint was that of any three I picked, no two would agree on placing Nachman or Buber as Main Entry. Even more fun, the Library of Congress had multiple records with each as Main Entry (also multiple forms of Nachman's name).
GRIPE THE FIRST: when cataloging, pay attention to the existing records....and the damn cataloging rules. The purpose of the catalog is to collocate items by title and/or author and/or subject matter; arbitrarily deciding who the author is does not help in the slightest.
I finally find a record to work from, just needing to list Buber as main entry and Nachman as added, and look in the U of I catalog....*cringe* 4 copies of the English translation: 2 in 834 (German literature -- and yes, it's a nonstandard Dewey number, U of I has a home-made literature classification scheme) listing Buber as main entry...and 2 in 296 (Judaism) listing Nachman as main entry. I can understand that Buber has multiple spots in Dewey -- 100s for philosophy, 200s for religion and you can argue 830s for German literature...but simply having the word "stories" in the title does not force the shelving of the book in literature. Part of being a cataloger, especially in Dewey, is assigning a number to a book based on where patrons will most likely be looking for it, which would be in the 100 or 200 range for this one, in my humble unbiased opinion.
GRIPE THE SECOND: When adding records to your system catalog, PUT THE NEW COPIES WITH THE OLD ONES.
So I go into the stacks, retrieve the two shelved in religion to recatalog them...and find that the catalog records cite Nachman's original work as the Uniform Title. *shakes head* An English translation of a German adaptation of a Hebrew original is NO LONGER CONNECTED to the original. Been part of cataloging principles for the past 30+ years. At least I managed to correct the mistakes of catalogers past this time, editing the record for the two translated volumes and re-classifying them, along with the German copy, to 296.833 (Chasidism). The two in 834 I'm leaving for someone else. *sigh*