Conflict of Authorship: Person <I>vs</I> Corporate Body (Cataloguing problems 7) (Comparison of CCC and ALA Code 5)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/1969/v6i2/49065Abstract
Refers to the importance of stating the Normative Principles of Cataloguing in a Catalogue Code and shows how ALA 1967 has made its first attempt in this direction. Enumerates the essential elements that a Catalogue Code should deal with. Refers to the Principle of Unity of Idea in a catalogue code and shows how ALA 1967 has followed the lead of CCC in the matter of respecting the principle by separating out the rules for the choice of heading from those for rendering it; but it still continues to mix up in one and the same rule the resolution of the conflict of authorship, and the choice of Heading for the Main Entry and for the Added Entries. Makes a comparative study of how the different editions of CCC and ALA code resolve the conflict of authorship centring round Person vs Corporate body And in this, considers the following cases: (1) Documents to be deemed to be of corporate authorship; (2) Documents to be deemed to be of personal authorship; (3) Non-governmental edition of an act; and (4) Conference documents. Indicates the impact, if any, received by any code from the earlier codes.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Downloads
Published
2002-01-02
How to Cite
Ranganathan, S. R., & Bhattacharya, G. (2002). Conflict of Authorship: Person <I>vs</I> Corporate Body (Cataloguing problems 7) (Comparison of CCC and ALA Code 5). Journal of Information and Knowledge, 6(2), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/1969/v6i2/49065
Issue
Section
Articles
License
All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.
Received 2014-05-20
Accepted 2014-05-20
Published 2002-01-02
Accepted 2014-05-20
Published 2002-01-02