In the current infrastructure, adding a uniform title/preferred title for the work (with the qualifier included) to each record would make it possible (although not easy) for the computer to "look up" the work cited. Wouldn't it? Sara Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
-----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question This is not new to RDA. It is a problem inherited from AACR2-style 'citations', and MARC. But: 730 0 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) The problem with this, is there's absolutely no way for a computer to actually _look up_ the 'work cited' here. It's going to be looking for a record with a title "Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)", but no such record (bib or authority) exists, right? I have no idea what the best solution for this is in the current infrastructure, but it's an example of the serious problems with our inherited infrastructure, which clearly "RDA" is not a magic bullet for. When those 'citations' were written for humans who were going to to take them and manually look up the other record in a printed (bound/card) catalog, they didn't need to be exact, they just needed to get the user to the right place in the alphabetic file and the reader could recognize the 'match' on their own. That is not the environment we are in, or have been in for about 15-20 years now. So that kind of citation is nearly useless in the online environment. Adding an RDA "Summary (work)" does not make it any more useful. ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Robert Maxwell [robert_maxw...@byu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:48 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question I think many of the linking fields (including 787) are best used to record manifestation-level relationships. If I were recording a work-level relationship, I'd probably use 730 in this case, with an authorized access point for the work; as you say, at least one of them would need to be qualified because we have two works with the same title (and no creator-I assume?) 730 0 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens. I always teach that the qualifier chosen should be whatever logically distinguishes the two; in this case "Summary" makes sense to me. 730 0 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) On the other hand, if you want to use 787, you could distinguish by including publication information ($d) and physical description ($h) and perhaps ISBN ($x) if they have ISBNs and they are different. This isn't very satisfactory, though, since the publication information is identical on both, and in any case all this is manifestation information, not work information. I guess you can put the authorized access point for the work in 787 $s. I'd go with 730, though. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:44 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Naming works question I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a summary of the other: 245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. 264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008] 300 ## iii, 100 pages : $b color illustrations, color maps ; $c 30 cm. 245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b summary of a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. 264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008] 300 ## 11 pages : $b color illustrations, color maps ; $c 30 cm The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source work and the derivative work. On the record for the summary I could add the following: 787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens but since the title is identical, this must have a qualifier of some sort, yes? If so what would make a reasonable qualifier? The reciprocal relationship would be: 787 08 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens Again, I think I need to break the conflict here by adding a qualifier. I thought perhaps of using "(Summary)" but I've not seen this done in any other situation. Just wondering what advice you might have about this sort of situation. Thanks, Adam Schiff ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
