[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 ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I know, Adam, that you are really asking an RDA related question. But we have had such records merged before in OCLC. In those cases, in addition to other fields there might be in the record to distinguish the two works, OCLC has advised us to bracket an edition statement in the 250. Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:44 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 ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam Schiff wrote: 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. The addition of (Summary) seems like the most logical thing to do. I've taken exactly this kind of approach on occasion, with things like Draft and Final versions of documents. (BTW, I really dislike the use of the full Appendix J phrases in 7XX $i, instead of what's really meant for public display. I'm looking forward to a metadata carrier that will allow us to *code* the relationships, so users won't be seeing Summary of (work): but instead will just see Summary of:.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add (Report) to the reciprocal 787? Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA) Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center sla...@library.ucla.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question Adam Schiff wrote: 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. The addition of (Summary) seems like the most logical thing to do. I've taken exactly this kind of approach on occasion, with things like Draft and Final versions of documents. (BTW, I really dislike the use of the full Appendix J phrases in 7XX $i, instead of what's really meant for public display. I'm looking forward to a metadata carrier that will allow us to *code* the relationships, so users won't be seeing Summary of (work): but instead will just see Summary of:.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
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 ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Yes, this is a good question. I don't think we've resolved yet whether once there is a conflict BOTH names/titles need to be qualified or just one. 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 Layne, Sara Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add (Report) to the reciprocal 787? Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA) Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center sla...@library.ucla.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question Adam Schiff wrote: 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. The addition of (Summary) seems like the most logical thing to do. I've taken exactly this kind of approach on occasion, with things like Draft and Final versions of documents. (BTW, I really dislike the use of the full Appendix J phrases in 7XX $i, instead of what's really meant for public display. I'm looking forward to a metadata carrier that will allow us to *code* the relationships, so users won't be seeing Summary of (work): but instead will just see Summary of:.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from something like
(Conference) after an initialism which is not clearly a conference.
No more [proceedings].
In this instance, I would include the subtitle, at least past the word
summary ..., for the one, and report .. for the other, in any
uniform title, citation or note. Both need distinguishing.
If OCLC does not consider 245$b in matching, you might should also add
a bracketed 250 edition statement to both, e.g., [Full report], and
[Summary]. Limiting the distinction to 7XX would be missed by many.
There are other instances when limiting citation or uniform title to
title proper is too brief and/or not distinctive enough. We need to
be more flexible about including other title information.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
How about that old standby: Selections. And then use the cutter of the main work and add a 2 to it. On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** -- 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: August-27-12 7:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source work and the derivative work. Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is my understanding the RDA does not allow it, There are several possible qualifiers for authorized access points of works, and these are covered in RDA and the LCPS. Unique to RDA (and now encoded in MARC) is that the qualifying bits of information also have their own dedicated MARC tag (such as Authority 380 - Form of Work). RDA 6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.2–6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point representing a different work, or to an access point representing a person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the following, as appropriate: a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3) b) the date of the work (see 6.4) c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of the work (see 6.6). LCPS 6.27.1.9 Choice of qualifying term: a) Use judgment in determining the most appropriate qualifier. Possible qualifiers are given in the list below; the listing is not prescriptive and is not in priority order. corporate body date of publication descriptive data elements, e.g., edition statement place of publication If choosing the date of publication for a multipart monograph, choose the date of the first part published or the earliest part in hand, in that order of preference. If choosing the place of publication for a multipart monograph and it is published in more than one place, choose as the qualifying term a place in this order of preference: the place that would be named first in the bibliographic record as the place of publication for the first part published, the first-named place of publication on the earliest part for which a place is known, or first-named place of publication on the earliest part in hand. If the name of the local place has changed, use in the qualifier the name the place had at the time the first/earliest part was published. b) If none of these qualifiers is appropriate, use any word(s) that will serve to distinguish the one work from the other. Use more than one qualifier if needed. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, J. McRee Elrod wrote: Adam L. Schiff said: The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source work and the derivative work. Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from something like (Conference) after an initialism which is not clearly a conference. No more [proceedings]. RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works with the same title: 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point representing a different work, or to an access point representing a person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9. 6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point representing a different work, or to an access point representing a person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the following, as appropriate: a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3) b) the date of the work (see 6.4) c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of the work (see 6.6). In my case, both the full report and the summary have the same title proper, and since the works would be named by title only, 6.27.1.9 is applicable. I will go with a term indicating another distinguishing characterist of the work and use Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) as the authorized access point for the derivative work. I do think that the full report also probably needs to have a qualifier added to it to distinguish it. I'm thinking Water availability in the Ovens (Full report) is about as good as anything else. The bib records are OCLC #408550975 and 808387939. The name authority records are no2012115407 and no2012115406. I used reciprocal 530s in the NARs to link the two related works. Now that you've helped me solve this question - here's another for the same two works: I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point made for the government of Australia, based on the subtitles: Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. 710 2_ CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, $e author. 710 1_ Australia, $e ??? 710 2_ CSIRO (Australia), $e issuing body. Any suggestions? None of the existing designators in Appendix I seems appropriate. The closest is sponsoring body but nowhere in the works does it explicitly state that the Australian Government is a sponsor of the work. For now, I've recorded this access point without a relationship designator. Thanks again, Adam ** * 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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
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
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Jonathan, In this case, yes there is a bib. record with a 130 field with Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) and another bib. record with a 130 with Water availability in the Ovens (Full report). Also note your $t in the 730 field should have been a $a. In 787 though, it would be $s for the uniform title and $t for the title of the manifestation. Adam ^^ 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, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: 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): $t
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam said:
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works with
the same title ...
But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
would have them (pre MARC), right?
I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point
made for the government of Australia ...
It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use
it, Recipient body: seems appropriate.
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.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
