________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer [weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com] Sent: March-08-13 10:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
>On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote: ><snip> >The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the >resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There >are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an >authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if >there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being >cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in >bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this >case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the >relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, >not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this >case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred >title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship >between the resource and the work that is in it. >/snip> >This shows the difference between RDA/FRBR and cataloging rules that came >before. RDA/FRBR are philosophical, academic >statements while AACR2 and >previous rules are pragmatic and based on practical issues. RDA/FRBR posits >that every manifestation >contains a work, and a specific version of that >work, the expression. Therefore, every manifestation must contain the >requisite work >and expression information, even if there is only one >manifestation. >Previous rules did not make such a philosophical statement. They began by >creating a record for the item, then *if and only if* it turned >out that your >item were related to records of other items, you would make those relations in >various ways. You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts. Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item) Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers have never had a choice about deciding what the work is in a manifestation because that's what determines the main entry heading. RDA takes the existing practice and labels it more concisely as a process of identifying the work in the manifestation rather than as something that creates a file order for a catalog. RDA also makes it a CORE element for the same reason that AACR2 doesn't let catalogers be lazy and not make a decision about main entry (aka identifying the work in a manifestation). In addition, RDA takes the **** pragmatic **** step of acknowledging other data scenarios in which authorized access points may not be the only method used to identify entities. Or, as AACR2 20.1 puts it (and I hope this issue is laid to rest once and for all): "The rules in part II apply to works and not to physical manifestations of those works, though the characteristics of an individual item are taken into account in some instances." Cataloging has always posited the "philosophical" idea that every manifestation has a work, and every record has that decision embedded within it. It's only a question about being implicit or explicit about it in terms of encoding and processing of bibliographic information. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
