22 CHOICE AND RENDERING OF HEADINGS: RESOLVING CONFLICT OF AUTHORSHIP IN CCC & AACR-2R

1 Objectives of the Module

The main objective of this module is to introduce to you the concept of author. After studying it you should be able to know:

1.      What is meant by an author in cataloguing i.e. the Concept of author?

2.      Different kinds of author from the point of view of cataloguing.

3.      The problem of „Conflict of Authorship‟ of various kinds.

4.      How these various kinds of conflicts are resolved according to CCC and AACR-2R?

Keywords

Author, Choice of Headings of Author, Rendering of Headings of Author, Conflict of Authorship.

Structure of Module: E-Text

1.  Introduction

2.  Definition and concept of author

2.1 Definition and concept of author in CCC

2.2 Definition and concept of author in AACR (1967)

2.3 Definition and concept of author in AACR-2R

3. Conflict of authorship

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Solution of problem

3.3 Person Vs Person

3.4 Person Vs Corporate body

3.4.1 Person Vs Government

3.4.2  Person Vs Conference

3.5 Corporate body Vs Corporate body

3.5.1 Government Vs Institution

3.5.2 Institution Vs Institution or Subordinate and Related Bodies.

3.5.3 Delegated-from-Body Vs Delegated-to-Body

3.6   Author‟s name merged in the Title

4.Summary

5. Questions

6. Further Readings

1. Introduction

Out of three main approaches of the users viz Author, Title and Subject to find out the required document through the catalogue, the author approach still remains the most potent approach of the users. The reason is that author‟s name is easily identifiable element as it is clearly mentioned on the title page of the document and particular document is known by the name of its author. That is why most of the cataloguing thought of the nineteenth and twentieth century is devoted to the determination of author and preparation of author entries. It may also be pointed out here whether the dictionary or classified catalogue, the name of the author is to be given in the heading section of the main entry.

Inspite of the current popularity of the subject approach as an user requires material on a particular specific subject irrespective of author, the author approach has remained the most used approach of the readers. Hence it is the primary function of the cataloguer to satisfy this approach. For this purpose he has to identify correctly the person or corporate body who is the author of a particular document. His understanding of the concept of authorship will enable him to choose the correct name as the basis of heading.

In this module you will be introduced to the „Concept of Author‟ in cataloguing. There are several access points of the users to find out a document in a library through the catalogue. To most of the users, the name of the author is the main access point to find out the document. Hence it is imperative for a cataloguer to know the „Concept of Author‟. This module aims to familiarize the prospective cataloguer to this concept.

Most of the documents are created by persons. In several cases more than one person are found involved with a particular work. Hence it becomes difficult whether the credit of authorship should be given to this person or that person. This gives rise to „Conflict of Authorship between persons. It is named as the conflict between „Person Vs Person‟.

Now-a-days quite a number of documents are emanated by corporate bodies such as Governments, Institutions, Societies and Conferences etc. In some cases of such documents also the conflict of authorship arises. This conflict is named as „Corporate Body Vs Corporate Body‟.

In a number of documents, the names of persons as well as corporate bodies appear in the title pages. Here the cataloguer has to decide whether the authorship goes to the person or corporate body. This conflict is named as „Person Vs Corporate Body‟.

In most of the catalogue codes the guidance is provided to resolve these conflicts. In this module we are concerned with two codes only viz Ranganathan‟s Classified catalogue code (CCC) and Anglo-American cataloguing rules (AACR-2R).

2. Definition and Concept of Author

The author is the producer of thought. In other words he is the person or body who has written the document and responsible for its thought content or intellectual content. The definition of author is given in various catalogue codes and by various authors of cataloguing.

AA   code (1908) defined author as, “1. The writer of a book as distinguished from translator, editor etc. 2. In broader sense, the maker of a book or the person or body immediately responsible for its existence. Thus a person who collects and puts together the writings of several authors (compiler or editor) may be said to be the author of a collection. Corporate bodies may be considered the authors of publications issued in their names or by their authority.”

In ALA rules (1949), author has been defined, “1. The writer of a work, as distinguished from the translator, editor etc. by extension an artist, composer, photographer, cartographer etc. 2. In the broader sense, the maker of a work or person or body immediately responsible for its existence. Thus a person who collects or puts together the writings of several authors (compiler or editor) may be said to be the author of a „Collection‟. A corporate body may be considered the author of a publication issued in its name or by its authority.”

According to Mann, “In a broad sense the author is the writer of the book or the person or body immediately responsible for its existence. Thus a person who collects and puts together the writings of several authors (compiler or editor) may be said to be the author of a collection even though he has not actually written the text. Corporate bodies such as societies, firms, institutions, etc may be considered authors of publications issued in their names or by their authority”.

2.1   Definition and Concept of Author in CCC

Ranganathan is his CCC has defined, “Author of a work – sense 1. Person creating a work, that is the thought and expression constituting it –sense 2. Corporate body owning responsibility for a work that is, for the thought and expression constituting it.”

If we analyse his definition, we find 1. Author is the creator of work. 2. It is responsible for the thought content and its expression in a work, and 3. It may be a person or body.

2.2 Definition and Concept of Author in AACR (1967)

AACR (1967) defines author as, “the person or corporate body chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work e.g. the writer of a book, the compiler of a bibliography, the composer of a musical work, the artist who paints a picture, the photographer who takes a photograph.”

Thus both the „Person‟ and the „Corporate body‟ are regarded as authors in both the above codes. In other words the authors may be divided into two broad categories:

1.      Personal authors

2.      Corporate authors

2.3 Definition and Concept of Author in AACR-2R

AACR-2R has not given the definition of author. It has given the definition of personal author only. “A personal author is the person chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work. For example, writers of books and composers of music are the authors of the works they create, compiler of bibliographies are the authors of these bibliographies, cartographers are the authors of their maps; and artists and photographers the authors of the works they create. In addition, in certain cases performers are the authors of sound recordings, films and video recordings”.

In case of AACR-2R the most notable point is that it does not recognise the concept of corporate authorship as recognized by AACR (1967) quoted above. That is why it has not defined the term „author‟ and „corporate author‟. No doubt it has given the definition of corporate body (AACR-2R, 21.1B1) and recommends to enter a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies under the heading for the appropriate corporate body under certain conditions (AACR-2R, 21.1B2).

Through the analysis of various codes we can generalize that the author is one who is responsible for a work or who creates a work or in other words the author is considered to be a person or body chiefly responsible for the intellectual content of the book, literary, artistic or musical etc.

According to AA Code (1908) and ALA rules (1949), the person or the body immediately responsible for the existence of the work is also taken to be the author for example, a person who collects and puts together the works of several authors (compiler or editor) can be said to be the author of a collection.

But an editor or a complier is in no way responsible for the thought and expression containing the different works in the collection. In such cases the writers of different parts are the authors. AA Code (1908), ALA (1949) and CCC all prescribe in such cases the editors or compilers as headings of their main entries while the actual authors already exist. This feature rises a question why these codes prescribe in such cases to use editors or compilers as the heading of main entries while actual authors exist? CCC has safeguarded itself from this criticism by prescribing to add the descriptive element „Ed‟ or „Comp‟ with the name. An editor or compiler is in no case an author. He is to be used as heading for the sake of convenience or in the absence of any other better solution.

Probably this seems to be a reason that in AACR (1967), the concept of „Principal Author‟ and in AACR-2R the concept of „Principal Responsibility‟ has been developed which include all the works of „Shared authorship‟ or „Shared responsibility‟, works of „Joint authorship‟, „Works for which different authors have prepared separate contributions‟ etc.

According to AACR-2R if in such works principal responsibility is attributed to one person or body then these are to be entered under the heading for that person or body. If principal responsibility is attributed to two or three persons or bodies, enter under the heading for the first named of these. If principal responsibility is not indicated and attributed and responsibility is shared between two or three persons or bodies, enter under the heading for the one named first. If responsibility is shared between more than three persons or corporate bodies and principal responsibility is not attributed to any one, two or three, enter under the title.

3. Conflict of Authorship

3.1 Introduction

There are several problems connected with authorship. But the most important and baffling of them is „Conflict of Authorship‟. „Conflict of Authorship‟ arises when there are more than one claimant for authorship of a particular document. In some cases it is most difficult to decide the authorship, because to determine the primary responsibility is not easy to decide. The other important fact is that no code can provide rules to cover all such cases.

Only some guidelines may be provided by the catalogue codes.

The major issues dealt with in CCC under this head are being enumerated below:

1.      Person V/s Person

2.      Person V/s Corporate body

3.      Government V/s Institution

4.      Ecclesiastical Polity

5.      Institution V/s Institution

6.      Delegated-from-body V/s Delegated-to-body

7.      Legal publications

8.      Author‟s name merged in the title

It will be appropriate to point out here that in the above list conflict no. 3,5 and 6 may be jointly headed as „Corporate body V/s Corporate body‟. In the same way there may be many divisions of „Person V/s Corporate body‟. Such as „Person V/s Government‟, „Person V/s Institution‟, and „Person V/s Conference‟. Out of these conflicts, Ranganathan has separately discussed „Person V/s Conference‟. Moreover Ranganathan has made a separate category for „Author‟s name merged in the title‟ which would have been included in „Person V/s Person‟.

We do not find any such list in AACR-2R. But its framers were aware of this problem and have provided rules to solve it. Most of them are covered under the heading „Works of mixed responsibility‟ and „Related works‟.

3.2 Solution of Problem

The problem of „Conflict of authorship‟ can be best solved at the level of definition of author. Ranganathan in his CCC has followed this prescription and has given list of such works with solution in his CCC Chapter GB. That is why in preceding sections the „Concept of author‟ has been discussed vividly.

AACR-2R has also provided a good solution to resolve these conflicts in its own way under different headings.

3.3. Person V/s Person

In several documents we may find more than one personal name in the title pages or author statements. These persons are not joint authors and collaborators. In such cases the role of each person in the creation of the work may be helpful to decide the authorship and the credit of authorship may be given to the person whose role is basic and more important.

Ranganathan has resolved the conflict entitled „Person V/s Person‟ in his CCC in Chapter GB. In AACR-2R most of them are covered under the headings „Works of Mixed Responsibility (Rule 21.8)‟ and „Related works (Rule 21.28)‟. The various categories of this type of conflicts are enumerated below with their solutions and references of rules of CCC and AACR-2R:

S. No.	Problem	Solution in
		CCC	AACR-2R
1.	Original author or Reviser	Original author (GB5)	Original author (21.12)
2.	Original author or Translator	Original author (GB5)	Original author (21.14)
3.	Original author or Adapter	Original author (GB5)	Adapter (21.10)
4.	Original author or Abridger	Original author (GB5)	Original author (21.12)
5.	Original author or Paraphraser	Original author (GB5)	(Not Included)
6.	Collection or selection of works of an author	Original author (GB5)	Original author (25.10)
7.	Original author or Commentator (if commentary is of importance)	Commentator (GB6)	Commentator (21.13)
8.	Original author or Concordance writer	Concordance writer (GB6)	Under its own heading i.e. Concordance writer (21.28)
9.	Original author or Continuer	Continuer (GB6)	Continuer (21.28)
10.	Original author or Dramatizer	Dramatizer (GB6)	Dramatizer (21.10)
11.	Original author or Imitation writer	Imitation writer (GB6)	Imitation writer (21.10)
12.	Dramatist or Libretto writer	Libretto writer (GB6)	Libretto writer (21.28)
13.	Original author or Indexer	Indexer (GB6)	Indexer (21.28)
14.	Poet or Music setter	Music setter (GB6)	Music setter or composer (21.20)

15.	Original author or novelizer	Novelizer (GB6)	Novelizer (21.10)
16.	Original author or Parody writer	Parody writer (GB6)	(Not Included)
17.	Original author or Sequel writer	Sequel writer (GB6)	Sequel writer
			(21.28)
18.	Original author or Supplement writer	Supplement writer (GB6)	Supplement writer (21.28)
19.	Original author or Versificationist	Versificationsist (GB6)	Versificationsist (21.10)
20.	Cartographer or Writer of text	Cartographer (GB3)	Cartographer (21.1A1)
21.	Anna, Table talk	Talker (GB1)	Principal participant (21.25)
22.	Dialogue	Participants (GB1)	Principal participant (21.25)
23.	Interview	Interviewee (GB1)	Principal participant (21.25)
24.	Lecture	Lecturer (GB1)	Principal participant (21.25)
25.	Narration real not fictitious	Narrator (GB1)	Principal participant (21.25)
26.	Correspondence of one person with many persons	One Person (GB2)	Principal author (21.6B1)
27.	Correspondence between two or more persons	To be treated as work of joint authorship (GB2)	Principal author (21.6B1)

Comments

If we go through the above provisions for resolving the conflict named „Person V/s Person‟ in CCC and AACR-2R, we find more or less the similar treatment. Both have based their rules for the resolution of conflict on the basis of responsibility.

3.4  Person V/s Corporate body

Probably the most important and confusing conflict is „Person V/s Corporate body‟ Ranganathan long before the publication or AACR-2R resolved the problem of conflict between „Person V/s Corporate body‟ in his CCC as following:

“The work in the document is of corporate authorship, if it is of a deliberative, legislative, directive, judicial, administrative or routine character limited by the purpose or function or outlook of the corporate body. The mere fact that a document is published, financed, aided, approved, sponsored, or authorized by a corporate body is not sufficient reason to deem the work in it to be of corporate authorship and not to be of personal authorship”, (CCC, GC31).

“The work in the document is of personal authorship, if its primary function is the extension of the boundary of a field of knowledge or its intensification, and the responsibility for the thought and expression of it rests on the person and not on the office held by him in the corporate body, inspite of his being a paid or honorary employee or a member of the corporate body. The mere mention of the personal name of an official of the corporate body in the place in which author‟s name is usually mentioned in a book, is not sufficient reason to deem the work in it to be of personal authorship and not be of corporate authorship” (CCC, GC32).

Hence according to Ranganathan the main criteria are as follows:

1.      The nature of work (i) may be of routine type, or (ii) its function may be the extension of boundary of a field of knowledge or its intensification.

2.      The responsibility for the thought and its expression.

Draper has suggested to reduce the corporate empire as well as improve its laws. He advocated entry under a personal author whenever possible, only turning to corporate entry as a last resort. In the opinion of Jolley, “always enter under a personal author or title except when the name associated with the work is clearly that of a corporate body.” Lubetzky proposed the principle of only entering under the corporate body publications issued in its name and representing its collective thought.

The views of Draper, Jolley, Vasilevskaya, as well as Ranganathan and Lubetzky are all reflected in AACR (1967) and AACR-2R.

According to AACR-2R rule 21.1B2 “enter a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies under the heading for the appropriate corporate body if it falls into one or more of the following categories:

(a)    Those of an administrative nature dealing with the corporate body itself or its internal or its internal policies, procedures, and / or operation

or its finances

or its officers and /or staff

or its resources (e.g. catalogues, inventories, membership directories etc).

(b)   Some legal and governmental works.

As far as the idea of emanating is concerned, AACR-2R has given a note on page 313 as follows:

“Consider a work to have emanated from a corporate body if it is issued by that body or has been caused to be issued by that body or if it is originated with that body”.

Further according of AACR-2R, 21.4D1. Official communications. Enter under the corporate heading for the official (….) works that fall into the following categories:

(a)    Official communications from heads of state, heads of government and head of international bodies (e.g. messages to legislatures, proclamations, and executive orders other than those covered by 21.31).

(b)   Official communications from popes, patriarchs, bishops, etc (e.g. orders; decrees; pastoral letters, official messages to councils, synods, etc.; bulls; encyclicals; and constitutions).

According to AACR-2, 21.4D2. Other works. “Enter all other works of such a person under the personal heading. Make an explanatory reference from the corporate heading to the personal heading.

Comments

Both the codes CCC and AACR-2R have provided sufficient guidance for the determination of the author in the case of the conflict „Person V/s Corporate body‟. As pointed out earlier AACR-2R does out recognise the concept of corporate authorship and has not provided the definition of corporate author. But the code has provided the operational definition of corporate responsibility and has given ample well defined examples (AACR-2R, 21.1B2). The other point is that the work must have emanated from corporate body. CCC has tried to resolve the conflict on the basis of responsibility for „thought and expression‟ constituting the work. Ranganthan has suggested to apply the canon of Ascertainability in such cases. But it can be said unhesitatingly that the cataloguer faces many problems in the practical application of the rules of both the codes.

3.4.1    Person V/s Government

Sec JC4 of CCC guides us to resolve this kind of conflict, “…. Corporate heading is to be used only in case of official publications such as messages, proclamations, despatches, ordinances, and so on, emanating from the head of government. It is not applicable to works written by a king, a president etc in his private capacity.

The similar provisions we find in AACR-2R-21.4D1 quoted earlier.

3.4.2    Person V/s Conference

Ranganathan has specially dealt with this conflict. According to American and British practice such works are entered under the heading of the conference. Raganathan does not agree with this view.

CCC   Sec GC5 has prescribed, “A conference is deemed author only of its agenda, minutes, resolutions, report of proceedings, and similar collectively created thought. But a collection of learned papers or memoranda presented by persons or corporate bodies at the conference is deemed to have respective person or body (ies) as author(s)”.

AACR-2R, 21.1B2, “Enter a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies under the heading of the appropriate corporate body if it falls into one or more of the following categories:

(d) Those that report the collective activity of a conference (proceedings, collected papers, etc)….

Comments

In this case of conflict CCC goes strictly by the question of responsibility for thought and expression constituting the work which is quite logical. While AACR-2R seems to follow the approach of readers or Ranganathan‟s Canon of Sought heading as most of the readers are likely to look under the name of the conference for such kinds of works rather than under editor or compiler.

3.5 Corporate body V/s Corporate body

Just like „Person V/s Person‟, one main category of conflict may be named as „Corporate body V/s Corporate body‟. In this category comes subordinate bodies, related bodies, affiliated bodies etc. Some of them are discussed below:

3.5.1     Government V/s Institution

Many of the institutions are either owned by government or financed by government. In some of the cases it becomes difficult to decide whether those should be entered as an organ of it or independent of it. CCC Chapter GD is concerned with the conflict namely „Corporate body V/s Corporate body‟. Conflict namely Government V/s Institution comes in this category. CCC section GD2 prescribes that if the work relates to the primary functions of a government or any of its organ, it is to be taken as that of governmental authorship. According to CCC Section GD3, “An autonomous or even non-autonomous organization, engaged in the work of research, production, commerce and supply of commodities and service to the public, may have to be taken to be the institutional author for a work for whose thought and expression it is responsible. It is so even if the institution is owned and managed by the government”. In CCC Section GD8, a list of institutions is given which should be taken as authors independent of their parent bodies.

As already pointed out earlier AACR-2R does not recognize the concept of corporate authorship but prescribe, entries under corporate bodies in specific circumstances. According to AACR-2R rule 24.1, “Enter a corporate body directly under the name by which it is predominantly identified, except when the rule that follows provide for entering it under the name of a higher body (see 24.13) or under the name of a government (see 24.18). AACR-2R has also provided ample guidance illustrating through sufficient examples to deal with this problem under rule no. 21.1B2, 21.B4, 21.6B1, 21.6B2, 21.6C1, 21.6C2, 21.8A and 21.10 to 21.27.

Comments

In this case of conflict also cataloguer faces many problems to resolve the conflict and he has to use his own sense of judgement.

3.5.2     Institution V/s Institution or Subordinate and Related Bodies

CCC   Section JD4 refers to rule no. GD8 for determining whether the name of the body will be rendered as if it were organ of a parent body or an independent corporate body. Under rule no. GD8, a list of bodies have been provided which will be taken as author independent of parent body.

AACR-2R, rule no. 21.1B4 states, “If a work falls into one or more of the categories given in rule no. 21.B2 and if a subordinate unit of a corporate body is responsible for it, apply the following provisions:

(a) If the responsibility of the named subordinate unit is stated prominently, enter the work under the heading for the subordinate unit.

(b)   If the responsibility of the named subordinate unit is not stated prominently, or if the parent body is named in the chief source of information and the subordinate unit is not, or if the subordinate unit has no name, enter the work under the heading for the parent body.

Comments

For this conflict the main guidance has been quoted above. By critical examination of both the codes we find that CCC has taken into consideration the cataloguing conventions. It is easier to decide whether the author of the work is parent body or an organ of it. Similar is the case with the parent body and a dependent or affiliated institution. By listing corporate bodies under Section GD8, it has made the task of the cataloguer easier. No doubt complications are created by the introduction of the concept of distinctive name. As far as AACR-2R is concerned the rules are scattered and quite difficult to apply.

3.5.3    Delegation-from-Body V/s Delegated-to-Body

CCC  Section GD7 prescribes to enter delegations to a conference or to a body such as U.N. etc under delegated from body. According to AACR-2R rule no. 24.26. “Enter a delegation, commission etc representing a country in an international or intergovernmental body, conference, undertaking etc, as a subheading of the heading for the country represented”.

Comments

In this case of conflict we find that both the codes have followed the concept of authorship i.e. principle of responsibility for the thought content and its expression in the work.

3.6         Author’s name merged in the Title

In the field of natural sciences, social sciences and technical subjects some books become very popular and longlasting among readers. Hence their successive editions are brought out but due to modern developments and researches, the original texts of these documents become old, obsolete and out of date. In such books the author has to make ample changes in the text to make it up-to-date. Sometime he may rewrite it totally. If the work is done by the person other than author, he may merge the name of the original author in the title due to his basic contribution, to pay homage to him or to reap the advantage of his popularity. For example see the following titles:

(1)   Green‟s Manual of Pathology/Fourteenth edition/Completely revised and enlarged by/A. Pinney.

Note: the preface of the 14th edition mentions the death of Dr. Thomas Henry Green.

(2)   Sears List of Subject Headings/Seventh edition/by Bertha Margaret Frick.

In the title pages of both these books, the name of original author has been merged in the respective titles. In the first case the other person has mentioned himself as reviser and rewriter while in the second case the other person has mentioned herself as author in the author statement. In case of such a situation it becomes difficult to determine the authorship.

Ranganathan in his CCC section GE5 states, “The safest course to determine the choice of the heading is to rely on the conon of Ascertainability, that is, by what is indicated in the title page, rather than sit in judgement over what is given in the title page.

Hence according to CCC in these cases „A. Pinney‟ and „Bertha Margaret Frick‟ respectively should be taken as authors. But in later times the view of Ranganathan seems to have been changed. Hence he suggested that if the other person declares himself as author, then only the book should be entered under his name otherwise it should be entered under the name of original author. If this course is followed the first book will be entered under „Thomas Henry Green‟ and second book under „Bertha Margaret Frick‟.

According to AACR-2R rule no. 21.12A which is applicable in such cases. „Enter an edition that has been revised, enlarged, updated, abridged, condensed etc., under the heading for the original if the person or body responsible for the original is named in the statement of responsibility or in the title ….”.

AACR-2R rule no. 21.12B. “If the wording of the chief source of information indicates that the person or body responsible for the original is no longer considered to be responsible for the work, enter under the reviser, etc.

Comments

If we apply these two rules for the above publications the first book should be entered under „Thomas Henry Green‟ and second book under „Bertha Margaret Frick‟. Hence we find identical treatment in both the codes. But no doubt the different cataloguers may not reach at the same decision in such cases.

4. Summary

Inspite of popularity of subject approach, the author approach is still the most potent approach of the users to find out desired document through catalogue. There are several problems of author catalogue. But the most important and baffling of them is „Conflict of Authorship‟ which may be of several kinds. Out of them the most important ones are „Person V/s Person‟ and „Person V/s Corporate body‟. CCC and AACR-2R both have given sufficient thought to this problem and have provided ample guidance. Still all the problems cannot be covered by any code. Hence the cataloguer has to use his own sense of judgment to tackle this problem.

Further Readings

• Anglo American Cataloguing rules. 2nd ed. 1988 revision. Ottawa, Canadian Library Association, 1988.
• Krishan Kumar. Cataloguing. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publication, 1993.
• Ranganathan, S.R. Classified catalogue code with additional rules for dictionary catalogue code. 5th ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1963.
• Ranganathan, S.R. and Ganesh Bhattacharyya. Conflict of authorship (In Lib. Sc. 6.1969. Paper B, G and H).