How does the Rule of Three work?

I have seen so many contradictory explanations of the Rule of Three that I'm ready to tear out my hair. For each of the faux-authorship cases below, what goes in a 1xx field, what in a 7xx, and what is discarded altogether?

Dewey and Cheatem
Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe
Dewey, Cheatem, Howe, and Wye

dsalo

cataloging
marc

Comments

Peter Murray: Can you rephrase the headline in the form of a question? I think that will help with focusing the issue and making it more discoverable later.
KatieR: I'm almost afraid to post an answer because of how this is worded. It feels like a test & if I get it wrong, I'll get reprimanded.
dsalo: And this is different from everywhere else on SE how? ;)
KatieR: Haha I think it's the "ready to tear my hair out" part that's throwing me. I'll post my understanding and pray it's right --if anything I'll learn the correct way!
KatieR: @dsalo, just to note that it is completely acceptable on SE to answer your own question! :)
dsalo: Would if I could! I asked because this confuses the life out of me.

Answer by yo_bj

In AACR2 for up to three authors, you will see the first author in the 1XX field and the additional authors in the 7XX field. So, the first two examples you listed will look like this:

1. 1XX Dewey 7XX Cheatem

2. 1XX Dewey 7XX Cheatem 7XX Howe

For an item that has more than three authors, the title becomes the main entry and the first author listed is listed in the 7XX field as an additional entry. The other authors are neither listed in the 245 field (replaced with an et al.) or in additional 7XX fields. The last example you give would then look like this:

3. 7XX Dewey

For RDA (AFAIK), the first author listed goes in the 1XX field and all other authors fall into the 7XX fields. The first two example formats remain unchanged, but the third example would look like this:

1XX Dewey 7XX Cheatem 7XX Howe 7XX Wye

Depending on your viewpoint, RDA will either bring better access due to the addition of multiple authors beyond the rule of three or a potential occupational hazard, causing earlier onset of CTS in catalogers who have to type out the additional authors (yes, I've heard this).

Of course there are exceptions abound. Some catalogers cite in AACR2 that that they can add more than three authors, if necessary [1]. Someone correct me if I'm leading folks astray!

Comments

yo_bj: I don't have the rule books on me atm, but I can try and get you corresponding AACR2r and RDA section numbers for prosperity, if needed.
KatieR: "For an item that has more than three authors, the title becomes the main entry and the first author listed is listed in the 7XX field as an additional entry." so there would be no 1xx field? Just the 245 field?
yo_bj: You are correct. 21.6C2 in AACR2r would apply, assuming that principal responsibility is not attributed to any of the authors above. This is mainly an artifact of the card catalog days, but technology nowadays can handle more access points.
dsalo: Bizarre. Thank you.

Answer by slmcdanold

The rule of three is in AACR2 back when cataloging was card based and we had a very limited amount of space (an index card) to record the description. You only recorded up to the first three authors, with the first author being the primary. If you had more than 3 authors, you had the option of only recording the primary, up to three, or in the case of no primary, no authors.

The rule of three has persisted because it is written into AACR2. It is now, however, all that useful anymore since our records are in bytes rather than typed onto index cards. In RDA the rule of three will be done away with and you record all the contributors/creators.

Many librarians have already ceased to worry about limiting themselves to three and record as many as they feel is necessary.