"Summary" would be recorded as "Other distinguishing characteristics of
the work"
Here's the authority record I created (no2012115406):
130 _0 $a Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)
381 __ $a Summary
410 2_ $a CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. $t Water
availability in the Ovens
530 _0 $i Summary of (work): $a Water availability in the Ovens (Full
report) $w r
The 381 field is where the other distinguishing characteristic (which can
be any word or phrase) is recorded as a separate element. But LCPS 0.6.4
says to always add the element used to differentiate one entity from
another to the access point itself, whether or not that element is also
recorded separately:
When recording elements to differentiate the authorized access point of a
person, family, or corporate body from that of another person, family, or
corporate body, always add one or more differentiating elements to the
access point. Use judgment in deciding whether to also record these
elements as separate elements and whether to record additional identifying
elements (those not needed for differentiation) as separate elements.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Gene Fieg wrote:
Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title
to distinguish it from others.
I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to
take the qualifier from the work
itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the
same work, then what. The uniform
title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
<tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
>
> Adam said:
>
> >RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> >with the same title ...
>
> But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
> would have them (pre MARC), right?
As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea.
A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good
"uniform" consistent identifier of the
work.
The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a
numeric identifier for the work--
something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and
designator.
A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for
authorized access points for works.
The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into
$a of the MARC field 130. This
despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as
380 - Form of Work). If
anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional
lack of granularity or complex
set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to
be done. A good example is the
overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed
title proper and that of preferred
title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two
distinct elements.
>
> >I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> >point made for the government of Australia ...
>
> It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
> possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it,
> "Recipient body:" seems appropriate.
The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element
serves as the basic indicator of
the relationship.
One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the
relationship designator in subfield $e
or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or
families, but for works and
expressions).
Among these are:
Creator
Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work
Contributor
Publisher
Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic
elements, but perhaps what's needed is
a better encoding method to capture these broader elements.
>
> I still think including part or all of subtitle makes more sense than
> supplying something. This is one of the very few instances in which I have
> not totally agreed with Michael Gorman (we had this discussion earlier
> about a very generic title proper, with a distinctive subtitle). Seems to
> me a "portion or all of subtitle" could be added to the list of possible
> RDA additions.
>
One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities
through uniform headings, and
provides instructions for other approaches.
This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known
as uniform titles or main/added
entry headings). These instructions are practically sequestered in RDA--
they're not the center of attention.
Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into
identifying an entity, including
control numbers and URIs. Many of these elements can be assembled as needed
into authorized access points, but
can also serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for
the Work is one element; Form
of Work is another; Distinguishing Characteristic Element is another. Some of
these elements, such as Date
elements, lend themselves to normalization routines, such as ISO standards. No
longer does one have to think
of these elements solely as fitting into one constricted display, like a jigsaw
puzzle, but difficult to work
with after-the-fact in extracting and utilizing that data more effectively.
Focusing on aspects anchored on the traditional display has limited prospects.
By utilizing the
entity-relationship model, RDA offers a conventional method that is used to
create consistent results in data
management. There's a much larger canvas that one can paint on with RDA, and
there are prospects of solving
many problems.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent
or endorse the accuracy or
reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded
email. The forwarded email is that of
the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of
Theology or Claremont Lincoln
University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
