ALCTS - Association of Library Collections & Technical Services

CC:DA/TF/Rule of Three/3

June 5, 2001

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

Task Force on the Rule of Three

Report

Please note that the purpose of the following series of pages is to facilitate the work of the Committee and to provide a means for outreach to both library and non-library cataloging communities. The documents accessible here are intended for the exclusive use of CC:DA and its cataloging constituencies. Under no circumstances should the information here be copied or re-transmitted without prior consultation with the current Chair of CC:DA.

Also available as an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file

Introduction

The Task Force on the Rule of Three reviewed 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up to report on and determine the action CC:DA should take in response to the proposals.

Background. Based on recommendations 2 and 5 of Tom Delsey’s The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules — Part II, the JSC agreed at its 22-24 March 2000 meeting that the application of the “rule of three” should be an option, and asked the Australian Committee on Cataloguing to draft a rule change proposal (4JSC/M/347.8 and 347.11). ACOC proposed three options for dealing with this (4JSC/ACOC/1):

Minimal change that could be implemented quickly and easily while a full revision of Chapter 21 proceeded
Rule revisions that maintained the status quo for minimum access, but explicitly allowed the provision of a higher level of access when desired
Make the “rule of three” optional, that is, “to make the higher level of access the norm, and to allow cataloguing agencies to optionally limit the assignment of access points.”

At its 13-15 September 2000 London meeting, JSC instructed ACOC to revise the proposal to develop option 2; 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up is the revised proposal.

General Issues and Recommendations

The Task Force supports the general concept of an alternative to the “Rule of three” in AACR2.

The Task Force recognizes that JSC instructed ACOC to submit the revised proposals as options to the current rules; the Task Force will comment below on specific proposals in the document as it stands. However, it should be noted that the majority of the Task Force felt strongly that JSC should reconsider the instruction and instead give further consideration to relegating instances of “rule of three” language to the optional rules.

The Task Force came up with a number of reasons for a case against option 2 (the status quo):

it is not in tune with the Delsey report, and (or perhaps because)
it is not based on sound principles either of logic or cataloging,
it is difficult to teach because it does not have a good rationale,
it is difficult to explain to public services librarians the rationale for limiting access,
current rules may be difficult to interpret and lead to inconsistencies (this was also one of ACOC’s comments),
there is no comparable limit to subject headings.

These objections could be categorized as being of 2 basic types: inconsistent with basic principles (a.-b.) and inefficient in explanatory force (c.-f.)

a-b. Delsey report, principles, and logic. The Delsey report only mentions “rule of three” concerns in Part II, which deals with the structure of AACR2 Part 2 (access points). The “rule of three” is singled out as an “exception” that “limit[s] the application of the basic principle that would flow from statements 2.1(a) and 2.2(a) in the Paris Principles.” Logical Structure Part II, p. 74; see also p. 83). The recommendations resulting from this observation are:

(2) Re-assess the concept of “authorship” as it relates to the function of the catalogue, and determine whether the exceptions to the rules that limit the assignment of access points in certain instances (including the “rule of three”) should be altered.
(5) Re-assess the current restrictions imposed by the application of the “rule of three” on the identification of individual works in items containing collections of works by different persons or bodies.

There is no mention of “rule of three” in Logical Structure Part I, which deals with AACR2 Part 1 (description), although the procedure is found in AACR2 Part 1. As ACOC pointed out, because rule 21.29F requires justification of access points in the description, the Delsey recommendations for AACR2 Part 2 have implications for Part 1 as well, notably 1.1F5, which implements the “rule of three” in the descriptive portion of the record.

The Paris Principles referred to in the Delsey report read:

“2. Functions of the Catalogue
The catalogue should be an efficient instrument for ascertaining

2.1 whether the library contains a particular book specified by
(a) its author and title
… and
2.2 (a) which works by a particular author … are in the library.”

These principles were reaffirmed in the IFLA report Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Munich: Saur, 1998, p. 97), which states that at its basic level of functionality, the bibliographic record (i.e., the collection of bibliographic records in the catalog) “should assist the user to do at least the following:

[1] Find all manifestations embodying:
the works for which a given person or corporate body is responsible …”

No rationale is given in AACR2 for the “rule of three” but the common assumption is that it became a part of the rules because of maintenance requirements of card catalogs; every added access point beyond the main entry required production of new cards, additional card filing, and less physical space in the catalog, and so various rules were formulated to reduce the number of access points, presumably those deemed less important. The “rule of three” was certainly not based on the functions of the catalog as stated in the basic principles cited above; when access is deliberately left out of the record for a given author, then the catalog will not be an “efficient instrument” to find out “which works by a particular author … are in the library”; the user will not find all of “the works for which a given person or corporate body is responsible” which the library owns or has access to. On the contrary, the “rule of three” is inconsistent with some of the most fundamental principles of cataloging theory.

The JSC feels that the “rule of three” ought to remain an option available to catalogers, and there is justification for this. Even though in the automated environment additional access points do not require the expenditure of manual labor and materials to produce new card sets, the addition of fields beyond what is now the norm would still require “extra” work, both a minimal amount of work in simply adding the field, but more importantly, a potential expenditure in required authority work for each additional controlled access point (although not all of these “extra” access points would require authority work beyond finding the established heading in the authority file).

Having acknowledged the Delsey report’s claim that “the rule of three” is not consistent with the fundamental principles of cataloging theory, it is illogical for the JSC to continue to maintain “the rule of three” as the standard rule. Logically, the standard or default rule should support the fundamental principles of cataloging theory; any pragmatic deviation from the fundamental principle should be the option.

c.-f. Simplifying interpretation and explanation. Maintaining this logical inconsistency in turn makes the rules more difficult to learn, teach, and explain. Rather than simplifying by addressing the basic problem, ACOC option 2 actually adds a layer of complexity to the rules. Under the current rules a decision chain, e.g., for 1.1F, would go as follows:

Transcribe the statement of responsibility as it appears (1.1F1)
BUT, does the statement of responsibility name more than three? If so, only transcribe the first [etc.] (1.1F5)

Under ACOC option two, the decision chain would remain the same, but with a third decision added:

BUT, does my library invoke the option in 1.1F5? If so, disregard 1.1F5 and return to 1.1F1—transcribe the statement of responsibility as it appears.

[Note the ACOC gives no option between invoking the rule of three and transcribing the entire statement. There is no option for transcribing a part beyond the three but not the entire statement.]

In addition to being more in keeping with fundamental cataloging principles, ACOC’s option three is also a simpler solution. If the “rule of three” became the option (rather than the option being to disregard it), instead of an elaborate option at the end of 1.1F5, complete with examples, 1.1F5 could be amended by the sole addition of one word at the beginning of the rule, “Optionally”:

1.1F5. Optionally, if a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group [etc.]

If there is concern that this is an “all or nothing” approach, the rule could be reworded instead to say something like “Optionally, if a single … degree of responsibility, omit any or all names except the first of each group …”

1.1F1 would become the basic rule covering all cases, unless the option in 1.1F5 were invoked. It would require no revision, although it would be made clearer if one or two of the ACOC examples showing transcription of more than three were added to it.

Similarly in Chapter 21, to fulfill the basic functions of the catalog, access points should be added for all persons responsible, and for all works embodied in the item being cataloged, and this should be the basic rule, not the option. This could be accomplished in 21.6B1, for example by revising the last sentence to read “Make added entries under the headings for other persons or bodies involved.” Examples 1, 2, 4 and 5 would remain, with ACOC’s example moved up to illustrate the basic rule. After the examples, read: “Optionally, if more than two other persons or bodies are involved, make added entries for none, or any, of the other persons or bodies involved.” The Animal Motivation example would be moved here as an illustration of “none” and another example would be added to illustrate “any”.

Other rules in Chapter 21 would be handled in the same way.

It should be noted that ACOC remarks that “A complete revision of Chapter 21 which addresses all of the issues raised by Delsey and others may be a better way to proceed.” (p. 3)

Thus the case against Option 2. In fairness, the report includes a case for ACOC option 2, since JSC has not yet articulated the reasons for its selection.

The Case for Option 2:

4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p. 2) refers to “concerns regarding the increased workload resulting from the increase in controlled access points” which affected the decision to make the revisions optional. From a database management viewpoint, even the implementation of 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up as it stands would inevitably increase, incrementally, the number of access points introduced into utility databases like OCLC and RLIN. Should the rule of 3 be optional, it is likely that the major cataloging agencies and large cataloging departments would follow the option rather than the default rule. Nevertheless, there is probably some legitimate concern that many contributors who are not obligated to follow agency or large department rule interpretation policies are more likely to assign more access points if the rule of 3 were designated as optional, and even a small percentage difference in the number of headings processed will have cost implications. Realistically, a not insignificant percentage of the new headings introduced into the utility databases due to rule liberalization will not be “controlled” in the sense of having a corresponding authority record in the national or international database, and these will inevitably make the work of creating national level authority records more complex and expensive. More headings will result in more conflicts in local catalogs as well; departments will have to balance accepting copy that does not restrict the number of headings against the additional amount of time needed to do catalog maintenance.

There are practical training implications that argue against making the rule of 3 optional. Institutions that choose to apply the options would have to re-orient staff to the rule reorganization; learning the rules in terms of options would be mentally akin to doing reverse engineering whenever the rules are consulted. (How logical and intuitive is that?) Whereas, if 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up is used, re-training can be kept to a minimum until there is a major re-write of Chapter 21 that takes into account aspects deliberately left out by ACOC in the document at hand.

Making the rule of 3 optional (rather than the default rule) may open up a logical contradiction with the current rules for choice of entry, which continue to be determined in the relevant situations by the rule of three.

4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up does not address “the concept of ‘authorship’ as it relates to the functions of the catalogue.” 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up is intended to be a quick and temporary supplement to the current rules until JSC wrestles with the more complex and lengthy task of re-thinking Chapter 21 at a more profound level. This will probably take a considerable amount of time. Tinkering with an intentionally temporary solution will only delay application of a flexible option that most recognize as ultimately beneficial to catalog users.

Editorial conventions

This document uses ~~strike-through~~ and underlining to reproduce the text of the original 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up document and of the Task Force response. Revisions to that text are indicated by bold underlining for insertions and ~~strike over~~ for deletions. Rule text is presented in serif type; comment is in sans-serif type.

Comments on Specific Proposals

[Note: The following comments apply to 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up as it stands; some of the comments would not apply if the rule of three were treated as an option.]

Part 1. Changes to Transcription

ACOC PROPOSED TEXT

1.1F5. If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons or bodies. Indicate the omission by the mark of omission (…) and add et al. (or its equivalent in a nonroman script) in square brackets.

America’s radical right [GMD] / Raymond Wolfinger ... [et al.]
Dickens 1970 [GMD] : centenary essays / by Walter Allen ... [et al.] ; edited by Michael Slater
A short-title catalogue of books printed in England, Scotland & Ireland ... 1475-1640 [GMD] / compiled by A. W. Pollard & G. R. Redgrave with the help of G. F. Barwick ... [et al.]
Proceedings of the Workshop on Solar Collectors for Heating and Cooling of Buildings, New York City, November 21-23, 1974 [GMD] / sponsored by the National Science Foundation, RANN–Research Applied to National Needs ; coordinated by University of Maryland ... [et al.]

Optionally, transcribe statements of responsibility appearing in the chief source of information in full, regardless of the number of persons or corporate bodies named.

Biodiversity and the re-introduction of native fauna at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park : proceedings of the Uluru-Kuta Tjuta National Park Cross-cultural Workshop on Fauna Re-introduction, September 1999 / edited by J.S. Gillen, R. Hamilton, W.A. Low and C. Creagh
Using and ‘the scene’ : patterns and contexts of drug use among Sydney gay men / Kate Ireland, Erica Southgate, Stephanie Knox, Paul Van de Ven, John Howard, Susan Kippax
Footprints across our land : short stories by senior Western Desert women / Lumu Nungurrayi, Marri Yakuny Napurrula, Milyika Napaltjarri, Nancy Kungkulu Tax, Ningi Nangala, NgunytjaNapanangka Mosquito, Nyangayi Napangarti, Tjama Napanangka, Kuninyi Nampitjin, Yuka Napanangka, Yunitja Nampitjin, Yupinya Nampitjin, Yutjuyu Taampa Nampitjin ; compiled by Jordan Crugnale.

Editorial: Delete period after last example.

Comment: The TF supports the ACOC proposal to revise 1.1F5 rather than use the notes field, i.e., as an option to transcribe statements of responsibility in the chief source of information in full, regardless of the number of persons or corporate bodies named, in order to justify more than three added entries.

However, we also believe there may be situations where neither the default rule nor full transcription would be appropriate. For such cases we would propose a second option:

Optionally, transcribe the first name of each group and any of the remaining names in each group as deemed important for access or identification of the piece in hand. If applicable, indicate omission by the mark of omission (...) and add et al. (or its equivalent in a nonroman script) in square brackets.
Full transcription:
“--my magic pours secret libations” / Monifa A. Love, curator ; essays by Joanne M. Braxton, Diana Montane, Delia Poey, Alvia J. Wardlaw ; the artists, Kabuya Pamela Bowens, Maria Brito, Maria Magdalena Campos-Pons, Yvonne Pickering Carter, Mirtha Ferrer, Martha Jackson-Jarvis, Jean Lacy, Maria Martinez-Canas, Januwa Moja, Winnie R. Owens-Hart, Malkia Roberts, Joyce Scott, Renee Stout, Yvonne Edwards Tucker

Selective transcription
“--my magic pours secret libations” / Monifa A. Love, curator ; essays by Joanne M. Braxton, Diana Montane, Delia Poey, Alvia J. Wardlaw ; the artists, Kabuya Pamela Bowens ... [et al.]

PART 2. Changes to Access Points

4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (pp.6, 8):
In 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up ACOC has modified the standard wording used in the optional provisions for access points by inserting the term additional, “to make it clear that access points added under the optional provision are in addition to any required by the body of the rule.” The TF strongly approves of this clarification to the standard wording but would suggest a slight modification to the proposed standard phrase.
ACOC proposed wording:

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any or all ...

TF proposed wording:

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any other ...

Rationale. If “additional” is intended to mean in addition to any headings required by the default rule, then “all” seems linguistically contradictory, in effect saying /In addition to the added entry required in the default rule … make added entries for all persons or bodies involved,” whereas the phrase “any other” would bring out the intention of “additional.“ Further, replacing “any or all0 with “any other” places a stronger emphasis on cataloger judgment; there is some concern that leaving in “all” might encourage routine assignment of an unmanageable number of added entries.
Here is how the TF proposed wording would apply to 21.6B1. In this instance, the default rule has been re-arranged for further clarity.
ACOC PROPOSED TEXT

21.6B1. If, in a work of shared responsibility, principal responsibility is attributed (by the wording or the layout of the chief source of information of the item being catalogued) to one person or corporate body, enter under the heading for that person or body. If the name of another person or corporate body appears first in the chief source of information, make an added entry under the heading for that person or body. Make added entries under the headings for other persons or bodies involved if there are not more than two.

The humanities and the library ... / by Lester Asheim and associates
Main entry under the heading for Asheim
Lady sings the blues / Billie Holiday with William Dufty
Main entry under the heading for Holiday
Added entry under the heading for Dufty
Animal motivation : experimental studies on the albino rat / by C.J. Warden with the collaboration of T.N. Jenkins ... [et al.]
(Three additional collaborators named on title page)
Main entry under the heading for Warden
Faustus : a musical romance ... / composed by T. Cooke, Charles E. Horn, and Henry R. Bishop
(Bishop’s name is displayed more prominently than those of the others)
Main entry under the heading for Bishop
Added entries under the headings for Cooke and Horn
“Aaron, r.f.” / by Henry Aaron as told to Furman Bisher
Main entry under the heading for Aaron
Added entry under the heading for Bisher

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any or all persons or bodies involved.

Environmental law reform in Queensland / compiled and written by Megan Peterson ; with the assistance of Adrian Jeffreys, Roslyn Macdonald, Tony Woodyatt, Jo Bragg, David Yarrow and Douglas Fisher
Main entry under the heading for Peterson
Added entries under the headings for Jeffreys, Macdonald, Woodyatt, Bragg, Yarrow and Fisher

TF MODIFICATION

21.6B1. If, in a work of shared responsibility, principal responsibility is attributed (by the wording or the layout of the chief source of information of the item being catalogued) to one person or corporate body, enter under the heading for that person or body.

The humanities and the library ... / by Lester Asheim and associates
Main entry under the heading for Asheim

If the name of another person or corporate body appears first in the chief source of information, make an added entry under the heading for that person or body.

Faustus : a musical romance ... / composed by T. Cooke, Charles E. Horn, and Henry R. Bishop

(Bishop’s name is displayed more prominently than those of the others)
Main entry under the heading for Bishop
Added entries under the headings for Cooke and Horn

Make added entries under the headings for other persons or bodies involved if there are not more than two.

Lady sings the blues / Billie Holiday with William Dufty
Main entry under the heading for Holiday
Added entry under the heading for Dufty
“Aaron, r.f.” / by Henry Aaron as told to Furman Bisher
Main entry under the heading for Aaron
Added entry under the heading for Bisher
Animal motivation : experimental studies on the albino rat / by C.J. Warden with the collaboration of T.N. Jenkins ... [et al.]
(Three additional collaborators named on title page)
Main entry under the heading for Warden

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any other persons or bodies involved.

Environmental law reform in Queensland / compiled and written by Megan Peterson ; with the assistance of Adrian Jeffreys, Roslyn Macdonald, Tony Woodyatt, Jo Bragg, David Yarrow and Douglas Fisher
Main entry under the heading for Peterson
Added entries under the headings for Jeffreys, Macdonald, Woodyatt, Bragg, Yarrow and Fisher
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p. 10):
Examples are needed where added entries are not made for all names recorded in the statement of responsibility. The TF suggests that the second optional example for 21.6C2 be modified, since Thompson and Williams do not seem to have the same importance.
ACOC PROPOSED TEXT

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any or all persons or bodies named prominently in the item.

Using and ‘the scene’ : patterns and contexts of drug use among Sydney gay men / Kate Ireland, Erica Southgate, Stephanie Knox, Paul Van de Ven, John Howard, Susan Kippax
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Ireland, Southgate, Knox, Van de Ven, Howard and Kippax
Vertebrate palaeontology of Australasia / editors: P. Vickers-Rich, J.M. Monaghan, R.F. Baird & T.H. Rich ; with the assistance of E.M. Thompson & C. Williams
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Vickers-Rich, Monaghan, Baird, Rich, Thompson and Williams

TF MODIFICATION

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any ~~or all~~ other persons or bodies named prominently in the item.

Using and ‘the scene’ : patterns and contexts of drug use among Sydney gay men / Kate Ireland, Erica Southgate, Stephanie Knox, Paul Van de Ven, John Howard, Susan Kippax
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Ireland, Southgate, Knox, Van de Ven, Howard and Kippax
Vertebrate palaeontology of Australasia / editors: P. Vickers-Rich, J.M. Monaghan, R.F. Baird & T.H. Rich ; with the assistance of E.M. Thompson & C. Williams
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Vickers-Rich, Monaghan, Baird, and Rich
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p. 11-15):
The TF supports 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up proposal to split 21.7B1 into 21.7B1 and 21.7B2, with suggested modifications to 21.7B2. Both the last part of AACR2 21.7B1 and 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up address analytical added entries with the assumption that they are going to be name-title added entries, which is not always the case; the TF proposal addresses this oversight.
ACOC PROPOSAL
21.7B2. If ~~such~~ an item falling into one of the categories given in 21.7A and entered under a collective title includes two or three works, make name-title added entries for each of them.

TF MODIFICATION

21.7B2. If ~~such~~ an item falling into one of the categories given in 21.7A and entered under a collective title includes two or three works, make analytical (name-title or title) added entries for each of them.
ACOC PROPOSAL (cont.)
Classic Irish drama / introduced by W. A. Armstrong
(Contains The Countess Cathleen by W.B. Yeats, The playboy of the western world by J.M. Synge, Cock-a-doodle dandy by Sean O’Casey)
Main entry under title
Added entries (name-title) under the headings for Yeats, Synge, and O’Casey
Added entry under the heading for Armstrong
If there are more than three works but only two or three persons or bodies responsible, make an added entry (or name-title added entry when appropriate) under the heading for each person or body.
TF MODIFICATION

If there are more than three works but only two or three persons or bodies responsible, make an added entry ~~(or name-title added entry when appropriate)~~ under the heading for each person or body or make a combination of no more than three added entries for persons or bodies and analytical added entries.

ACOC PROPOSAL (cont.)
Regency poets : Byron, Shelley, Keats / compiled by C.R. Bull
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Byron, Shelley, Keats and Bull
A Cornish quintette : five original one-act plays from the Cornwall Drama Festivals, 1970-2
(Contains A skeleton in the cupboard and The happening at Botathen by Donald R. Rawe, Wheal Judas and The Christmas widow by Burness Bunn, Shadows of men by Gwen Powell Jones)
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Rawe and Bunn
Added entry (name-title) under the heading for Jones
Traffic laws, city and state
(Contains ordinances of the city of Houston and laws of the state of Texas)
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Houston and Texas with uniform titles for the ordinances and laws
Comment: The ACOC option appears to preclude multiple works by a smaller number of authors. The Four new poets example in 4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up clearly illustrated an example of added name, not name-title added entries. The ACOC option has been modified and the example has been restored.
TF MODIFICATION
Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any of the other persons or bodies involved. If an item contains more than three works, make additional ~~name-title~~ analytical added entries for any ~~or all of them~~ of the remaining works.
Four new poets: John Bennet, Susan Hawthorne, Beate Josephi, Terry Whitebeach
Main entry under title
Added entries under the headings for Bennett, Hawthorne, Josephi, and Whitebeach
Plays from black Australia / Jack Davis, Eva Johnson, Richard Walley, Bob Maza ; with an introduction by Justine Saunders
(Contains The Dreamers by Jack Davis, Murras by Eva Johnson, Coordah by Richard Walley, The Keepers by Bob Maza)
Main entry under title
Added entries (name-title) under the headings for Davis, Johnson, Walley, and Maza
Added entry under the heading for Saunders
Five plays of our time / edited by Sydney Box; [foreword by Irene Vanbrugh].
(Contains Only yesterday by Adrian Brunel, Autumn by Margaret Kennedy and Gregory Ratoff, Black limelight by Gordon Sherry, Drawing-room by Thomas Browne, They fly by twilight by Paul Dornhorst)
Main entry under title
Added entries (name-title) under the headings for Brunel, Kennedy, Sherry, Browne and Dornhorst
Added entries under the headings for Ratoff, Box and Vanbrugh
~~If more than three persons or bodies are named in the chief source of information, make an added entry under the first person or body named there.~~
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p. 17):
Remarks on the revision of the rules relating to sound recordings:

The rules relating to sound recordings include many instances of the “Rule of three” and other rules limiting access points in certain circumstances. The following proposed revisions address the “Rule of three” in rules 21.23A1, 21.23B1, 21.23C1, and 21.23D1.
However, it would be unwise to proceed with these revisions in isolation when there are so many unresolved issues related to sound recordings. These include the inconsistencies identified by Delsey in “The concept of authorship” in The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Part II. The definition of “principal performer” is also problematic (see the LCRI for these rules), as are the types of relationship to the work which should be expressed in access points (see the draft report of the CC:DA task force on Works Intended for Performance).

Comment: The TF sees no advantage in rejecting the options at this time. They would simply sanction explicitly what the LCRI’s have been doing all along (LCRI 21.29D).
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p.29):
PROPOSED TEXT

21.30G1. Make an added entry under the heading for a work to which the work being catalogued is closely related (see 21.8-21.28 for guidance in specific cases). In such a case, the heading is that of the person or corporate body or the title under which the related work is, or would be, entered. If that heading is for a person or body, and the title of the related work differs from that of the work being catalogued, add the title of the related work to the heading to form a name-title added entry heading. When necessary, add the edition statement, date, etc., to the name-title or title added entry heading.
When appropriate, substitute a uniform title (see chapter 25) for a title proper in a name-title or title added entry heading for a related work.
If the rules in 21.8-21.28 refer to three or fewer works, and more than three works are involved in a particular instance, optionally, make an added entry for any or all of the related works.

Comment: Review of rules 21.8-21.28 indicates that the rule of 3 is never invoked. Rule 21.28, Related Works, and 21.30G seem to assume that a work will be related to only one other work. Of all the examples in 21.28, there is not one that demonstrates a relationship to more than one other work. The TF therefore suggests alternative wording to the ACOC proposal.
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL:

21.30G1. Make an added entry under the heading for a work to which the work being catalogued is closely related (see 21.8-21.28 for guidance in specific cases). In such a case, the heading is that of the person or corporate body or the title under which the related work is, or would be, entered. If that heading is for a person or body, and the title of the related work differs from that of the work being catalogued, add the title of the related work to the heading to form a name-title added entry heading. When necessary, add the edition statement, date, etc., to the name-title or title added entry heading.
When appropriate, substitute a uniform title (see chapter 25) for a title proper in a name-title or title added entry heading for a related work.
If there is more than one work to which a given work is related, optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any of the other works .
4JSC/ACOC/1/ACOC follow-up (p. 32):
Modifications indicated.
PROPOSED TEXT

21.34B. Enter a collection of rules governing more than one court of a single jurisdiction but enacted as laws of that jurisdiction as instructed in 21.31. Enter all other such collections of court rules under the heading for the agency or agent promulgating them.
If the rules govern two or three courts, make added entries under the headings for the courts governed. If the rules govern four or more courts, make an added entry under the heading for the one named first in the chief source of information of the item being catalogued.

Code de procédure civile de la province de Québec : 13-14 Elizabeth II chap. 80
Main entry under the heading for Québec with uniform title for the law

Optionally, make additional added entries under the heading(s) for any other ~~or all~~ of the courts governed.