Steven,
If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a
130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each
record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all.
So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation
title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected
works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged
necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You
suggested the name of the publisher, as in "Sea (Vanity Press)". But it
could just have easily been something like "Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005)"
or many other formulations.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
-----Original Message-----
From: Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in
245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase
substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean
more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also,
given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better
practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time
and energy searching for conflicting titles.
In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t
analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and
display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted
between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700
a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out
the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a
plus.
With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could
be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more
trouble than it's worth.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-----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: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
My comments below Bob's.
--Adam Schiff
UW Libraries
Seattle, WA
AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access
point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that
matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we
consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems
many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I
regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel
where the cataloger has used second indicator value "2" with an access point
for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would
alleviate some of these coding errors.
Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording
all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from "we've always
done it that way")?
AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work
access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely
represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title
proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every
record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant
authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those
authorized access points.
At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work
using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the
resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we
have this exception for just one work/expression?
AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
