G. Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore 3, IN

Abstract

Research in cataloguing may be said to have begun in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Prior to 1928, the chief contributors were Baber, Panizzi, Jewett, Crestadoro, Dziatzko, Cutter, Linderfelt, and Kaiser. Their work was largely empirical. Research in cataloguing took a new turn in 1928 with the formulation of the Five Laws of Library Science by S R Ranganathan, and a still more positive turn in 1938, with his formulation of Normative Principles special to cataloguing. Work up to 1950 was done by him single-handed. From 1951, active developmental research was made possible by the formation of the Library Research Circle in Delhi. As Chairman of the Documentation Sectional Committee of the Indian Standards Institution Ranganathan promoted standards for Alphabetisation, Cataloguing Terminology, Lay-out of Catalogue Code, and Supplement to Author Statement to be printed on the back of the title-page of a book. Since 1953, at the international level he has been suggesting the formulation of simplified cataloguing rules for the books of the future, based on the standard for the Supplement to Author Statement. In his own catalogue code he provided rigorous rules for Classified Catalogue, Dictionary Catalogue, and rules for National Bibliography, Indexing and Abstracting Periodical, Union Catalogue and for cataloguing of Periodical Publications. Cataloguing research in India has been brought to the level of a priori research and thus Cataloguing has now become a science based art.

Full Text

     

S. R. Ranganathan ¹, G. Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore 3, IN

Abstract

A conflict of authorship should get resolved at the stage of the definition of the term 'Author' and of the terms denoting the different kinds of author. In the case of the conflict "Corporate Body vs Corporate Body, each of the initial Formal Definitions requires to be propped up by an appropriate Interpretative Definition as a sequel to it. Many of the Cataloguing Codes do not give an explicit Interpretative Definition. But they are implied in their rules for Choice and Rendering of Heading; and they can be distilled out of these rules. A critical and comparative study of how RDC and the different editions of AACR and of CCC resolve the conflict "Corporate Body vs Corporate Body" is made on the basis of the relevant Interpretative Definitions - either explicitly stated or distilled out from the rules implying them. Conflicts centring round the following kinds of Corporate Bodies are considered: (1) Government; (2) Near Sovereign Body; (3) Quasi Government; (4) Institution; and (5) Conference. A separate part is devoted to each kind of Corporate Body. Each part begins with a section on Terminology giving the precise definitions of the terms needed to develop the ideas systematically. The specific issues considered generally in relation to each kind of Corporate Body are: (1) Whole Corporate Body vs its Organ of Remove 1; (2) Organ of Remove 1 vs Organ of Remove 2; (3) Corporate Body vs its Quasi Independent Institution; (4) Corporate Body vs Its Organ Conference; and (5) Corporate .Body as a Delegated-from-Body vs Conference: Impact, if any,  received by any Code from the earlier Codes, is indicated. Wherever necessary, the Interpretative Definitions for inclusion in CCC (Ed 6) are given.

Full Text

     

S. R. Ranganathan ¹, G. Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore 3, IN

Abstract

If the name of the original author is merged in the title, it may give rise to a conflict of authorship. Ordinarily, such a conflict falls in the category "Person vs Person." As regards resolution of conflict of authorship, the implication of the Principle of Unity of Idea is that a cataloguing code should (1) recognise resolution of connect of authorship as a problem quite distinct from those of choice, rendering, and recording the name of the author; and (2) give an independent set of rules for the resolution of conflict of authorship. A conflict of authorship arising out of the merger of the name of the orginal author in the title, should ordinarily be resolved at the level of definition of terms that is, with reference to the formal definitions of the terms 'Personal Author' and , Personal Collaborator. If they do not prove sufficient for the purpose, the definition of the term 'Personal Author' is to be propped up by an interpretative definition. In the light of the above criteria, a comparative study of the respective approaches of the different editions of CCC, and AACR to resolve the conflict, is made. The following interpretative definition of the term 'Author' is proposed to resolve the conflict. In case the name of the author of the original work is merged in the title of the revised work, the author of the original work is the author of the revised work if the reviser himself definitely indicates, in the Collaborator Statement on the title-page, that he himself is only a collaborator of the work concerned.

Full Text

     

S. R. Ranganathan ¹, G. Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore 3, IN

Abstract

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.

Full Text

     

A. Neelameghan ¹, G. Bhattacharya ¹

Affiliations
1 Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore 3, IN

Abstract

Examines the need for and the stage at which the subject-experts should be asked to give the students a bird's eye view of specific subjects and deals with the choice of the subject, the subject expert and methods of orienting the lecture.

Full Text