The historical development of the concept of corporate authorship, from its Anglo-American beginnings to its eventual broad international acceptance is summarized. The seeming contradiction in terms involved in the idea of a corporate body as an author is noted, and a rationale is provided to justify the idea. "Responsibility" has proved to be an unsatisfactory criterion for corporate authorship and "collective activity" is suggested as better. Limitations on the acceptability of corporate authorship the explored. The abandonment of corporate authorship in AACR2 is attributed to an effort to secure satisfactory entry for serials without a special rule for them, a solution considered regrettable.
The feasibility of adapting the Emory University Woodruff Library card catalog to AACR 2 was tested by examining all personal and corporate name access points in a sample of recently cataloged titles, Only 15 percent of these headings would require modification in 1981 if LC's policies for implementation of AACR 2 are accepted. Kinds of changes and extent of disruption to the filing sequence were considered in setting criteria for four types of action: interfiling, making changes confined to one tray, making changes requiring shifts to other trays, or creating split files.
Chapter 22 of AACR2 includes new provisions intended to resolve the conflicts between the two objectives of author-title cataloging in ways more satisfactory than those tried earlier. Its provisions concerning use of initials in headings (with full names added in parentheses) facilitate achievement of both objectives and represent a real improvement over earlier previsions; but its new rules concerning headings for persons who use more than one name do not represent an improvement. They pose a threat to the second objective, and because they are nebulous, they threaten standardization and thus impede interlibrary cooperation.