Hello Heidrun, My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a "compilation" is simply defined as a gathering of multiple works, every aggregation of such items is a compilation, again, regardless of whether the creator considered them collectively a single work. I would be happy to be corrected if this isn't an accurate understanding of FRBR.
Adolfo -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles Adolfo, I've read up the comments in the PCC-list archive on this topic. I like the practice of UCSD (I quote from Ryan Finnerty's mail): "UCSD does not use CCTs when the works in a compilation are issued for the first time in that compilation. Examples include an original book of poems by one author, or a new collection of short stories, essays, etc. In cases of doubt whether something has been previously separately published, do not add a CCT." I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a "compilation of works". Rather, in the case of a new book of e.g. poems or short stories, the author will think of this as *one* individual creation, i.e. *one* work, even if the bits it contains themselves can also be thought of as works. "Compilation" seems to imply that the things which are put together had some sort of independent existence before (at least this is my impression as a non-native speaker). This is not true if they were created especially for the collection. So I would daringly argue that these cases do not fall under 6.2.2.10 at all. Therefore, we do not even have to *think* about whether these things are known bei their own title or not. They aren't compilations, so they cannot get a conventional collective title. Instead, they should be treated as "ordinary" works. The German RAK rules, by the way, have an explicit rule to treat a book of poetry as a single work (§ 5,2). Heidrun > Hi Adam, > > I believe you have mischaracterized the opinions expressed on PCC list. I > believe many have expressed a disagreement with LC practice and are not > following it. For example, at UCSD not only are we not following LC practice > for the master record, we are actively removing the CCTs for our local > records. > > Adolfo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam L. > Schiff > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:45 PM > To:[email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional > collective titles > > I've asked just this question on the PCC list, since the policy statement > that covers this is labeled LC practice. So far I've only heard back from a > few libraries, but they are following LC practice. Which makes sense when > you consider that much of the copy for cataloging that we get comes from LC, > and we don't have the staffing to redo what they do. > Therefore we will be getting and accepting many records that have these > conventional collective titles, and any original cataloging records that we > might create according to a different local practice would be just a drop in > the bucket of all the records in our catalog. > > Adam > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:08:42 +0100 >> From: Heidrun Wiesenm?ller<[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >> <[email protected]> >> To:[email protected] >> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective >> titles >> >> Adam, >> >> These examples all seem to follow LC's interpretation of the first >> sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10, i.e. none of these collections was treated >> as being known under its own title. >> >> So, is it correct to assume that LC's rather extreme interpretation >> (that a collection can only become known by its own title over the >> course of time) is at present widely followed, although Kevin Randall >> and others have raised objections? >> >> I've noticed that in the NACO training module 6 >> http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/Module%206-Describing >> % 20Works%20and%20Expressions.pptx there is no detailed explanation >> of how the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10 is to be understood (slide >> 38). >> So I'm not sure whether all PCC libraries follow LC's practice here. >> >> Heidrun >> >> >> >> Adam L. Schiff wrote: >>> Nicephorus, $c Blemmydes, $d 1197-1272. $t Works. $k Selections >>> (Oeuvres >>> theologiques) >>> >>> Rupert, $c of Deutz, $d approximately 1075-1129. $t Works. $k >>> Selections (Opera apologetica) >>> >>> Talmage, James E. $q (James Edward), $d 1862-1933. $t Works. $k >>> Selections (Beginner's guide to Talmage) >>> >>> William, $c of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, $d 1180-1249. $t Works. $k >>> Selections (Opera homiletica) >>> >>> Council of Trent $d (1545-1563 : $c Trento, Italy). $t Works. $k >>> Selections (Documentos ineditos tridentinos sobre la justificacion) >>> >>> Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections >>> (Personal writings of Joseph Smith) >>> >>> Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections >>> (Essential Joseph Smith) >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Adam L. Schiff >>> Principal Cataloger >>> University of Washington Libraries >>> Box 352900 >>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900 >>> (206) 543-8409 >>> (206) 685-8782 fax >>> [email protected] >>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address >>> from the address you are subscribed under to: >>> [email protected] >>> In the body of the message: >>> SIGNOFF RDA-L >> -- >> --------------------- >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >> >> To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address >> from the address you are subscribed under to: >> [email protected] >> In the body of the message: >> SIGNOFF RDA-L >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Adam L. Schiff > Principal Cataloger > University of Washington Libraries > Box 352900 > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 > (206) 543-8409 > (206) 685-8782 fax > [email protected] > http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the > address you are subscribed under to: > [email protected] > In the body of the message: > SIGNOFF RDA-L > > To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the > address you are subscribed under to: > [email protected] > In the body of the message: > SIGNOFF RDA-L -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: [email protected] In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: [email protected] In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
