Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
On 16/12/2013 21.09, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Adam Schiff wrote: LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. What I would really like to see is some kind of justification for this idea. Is there any evidence that catalog users or the general public do NOT know the the title of a compilation by the title that appears on its title page? Can anyone tell me--with a straight face--that the book Everything is nice : collected stories, sketches and plays is not known to anyone by that title, but rather is known by the title Works. Selections. 2012??? /snip Of course, our predecessors understood--probably better then we do--that nobody will ever search for Works or Selections. That was not the purpose of collective uniform titles. It turns out that this is an example of how the transfer from card/print catalogs to online catalogs changed something very fundamental in the workings of the catalog. It is clearest to show this through an example. If we examine the Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum (that is, Panizzi's catalog where only volume 1 came out and because of popular outrage, it was stopped and the Royal Investigation began) the purpose of these collective titles (which didn't really exist as they do today) was used for *arrangement*, and there was no need for anybody to search for them because once you found a person's name, the first things you saw were the Works and Selections etc. As a result, when you found the person, you found their works (if there were any). To see how it worked, we can use the wonders of Google Books to look in Panizzi's catalog under Aristophanes: http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJhl=itpg=PA317#v=onepageqf=false and we immediately see Works (didn't have to search for it) and after browsing we eventually come to Separate Works. If we look under the more complex arrangement under Aristotle http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJhl=itpg=PA321#v=onepageqf=false, we see Works and eventually (much farther along) we come to Two or More Separate Works (or our Selections). This reveals an *incredibly complex* arrangement, with see references everywhere to other places in the catalog, and we can begin to understand the outrage among the people who saw this catalog and why they demanded an investigation. These arrangements were transferred wholesale into the card catalog. This can be seen in the Princeton scanned catalog, where we find the following arrangement for Aristotle: http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/1371.50r=1.00. Even more complex is Cicero http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/5280.50r=1.00. Complete works and selected works were often interfiled. With the card catalog, at least some very nice notes were possible. All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to *actively search* for Works (or browse to W) although everybody, including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it is also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time. Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Selections. English? I think they do want that, but those groups of records are impossible for people to find in our current catalogs. Changing it to Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* Selections. English is certainly no improvement at all for the user and seems senseless. But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
James, All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to *actively search* for Works (or browse to W) although everybody, including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it is also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time. Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Selections. English? I think they do want that, but those groups of records are impossible for people to find in our current catalogs. Changing it to Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* Selections. English is certainly no improvement at all for the user and seems senseless. I agree that in current catalogs, collective titles aren't much help. Maybe this was the reason that the principle of collective titles was almost completely abandoned in Germany, when we changed from our older cataloguing code (the so-called Prussian instructions) to the modern German RAK rules. But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just a question of changing how the data is presented. No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X is displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among others): - other editions of this work - secondary literature about this work - other works by the same author - collections of works by the same author - biographies of the author Of course, these links should only be shown if there are appropriate records in the catalog. The collections of works by the same author link would make use of the collection information. It wouldn't matter if this information was stored conventionally as collective titles or - as I suggested in my last mail - as additional work elements in the composite description. Heidrun -- - 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
On 17/12/2013 14.07, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just a question of changing how the data is presented. No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X is displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among others): ... /snip I completely agree that a lot *could* be done. For instance, changing how the data is presented can be achieved without changing a single rule; all that needs to be done is change into a more modern format and play around. A lot already has been done with the new methods of indexing records that now allow facets, such as in Worldcat, as I continue to point out. That is not magic or witchcraft. It is XML (even MARCXML) with Lucene-type indexing and incredibly enough, it is available for free! Far more could be done using these tools. But nobody is dancing in the streets. This has been such an incredible technological advance, and it seems that the cataloging world hasn't even noticed. Also, the public has definitely changed their searching behavior and their information expectations in lots of ways but it seems as if catalogers still believe that people browse for information in alphabetical order! I've actually had to argue the case. The collective uniform titles are a case in point. It was more important to change everything from Selections to Works. Selections as if that is going to help anybody at all! Of course, people can't find Selections now, but they can't find Works either I have suggested all kinds of changes in how the data could be presented, and many others have too. All of this explains why I think there needs a complete reconsideration *from the user's point of view* before anybody will begin to see any real differences. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one complete works, in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a compiler about what complete means. Does one include juvenilia, drafts, alternate versions, and other unpublished materials? Then there are compilations made at different stages of an authors career, or works that are discovered after an earlier complete works is published. Im not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete works are in fact the same Work in the WEMI universe, but it does reinforce my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry. Gary Gary Hough Head, Information Resources Management Dept. W.E.B. Du Bois Library University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 phone: (413) 545-6856 email: gho...@library.umass.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training materials, but the more I think about it the more realize Ive changed my mind about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an author can only write one complete works), and that variations are expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that different selections are different works.) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Chew Chiat Naun Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 A few comments on this very interesting thread. In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles, but potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about this. (I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.) I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by. I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different position. -- Chew Chiat Naun Director, Cataloging Metadata Services 110D Olin Library Cornell University (607) 254 8031 tel:%28607%29%20254%208031 On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have different contents. The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the conventional collective title. The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option. Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example: X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry) Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation is known. LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
There's also the possibility that the complete works can be published while the author is still alive; so they're complete (whatever that might mean) as of the time of publication, but there may be more in the future. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one complete works, in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a compiler about what complete means. Does one include juvenilia, drafts, alternate versions, and other unpublished materials? Then there are compilations made at different stages of an author's career, or works that are discovered after an earlier complete works is published. I'm not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete works are in fact the same Work in the WEMI universe, but it does reinforce my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry. Gary Gary Hough Head, Information Resources Management Dept. W.E.B. Du Bois Library University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 phone: (413) 545-6856 email: gho...@library.umass.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an author can only write one complete works), and that variations are expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that different selections are different works.) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Chew Chiat Naun Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 A few comments on this very interesting thread. In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles, but potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about this. (I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.) I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by. I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different position. -- Chew Chiat Naun Director, Cataloging Metadata Services 110D Olin Library Cornell University (607) 254 8031tel:%28607%29%20254%208031 On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edumailto:asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
That's why RDA refers to such a compilation as one that purports to be the complete works of an author (including cases where such a compilation is published before the author's death). The cataloger is not expected to compare what is in hand against some reference work to make sure it is in fact complete. This seems practical to me. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one complete works, in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a compiler about what complete means. Does one include juvenilia, drafts, alternate versions, and other unpublished materials? Then there are compilations made at different stages of an author's career, or works that are discovered after an earlier complete works is published. I'm not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete works are in fact the same Work in the WEMI universe, but it does reinforce my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry. Gary Gary Hough Head, Information Resources Management Dept. W.E.B. Du Bois Library University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 phone: (413) 545-6856 email: gho...@library.umass.edumailto:gho...@library.umass.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an author can only write one complete works), and that variations are expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that different selections are different works.) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Chew Chiat Naun Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 A few comments on this very interesting thread. In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles, but potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about this. (I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.) I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by. I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different position. -- Chew Chiat Naun Director, Cataloging Metadata Services 110D Olin Library Cornell University (607
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Thanks for these and your later set of examples, Adam. Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a single larger work, rather than collective works? Certainly there is no reason to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would have the same content as another. Are we making headings like: Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of Paradise lost) or Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)? Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -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, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera liturgica et poetica) n 85278491 Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei) no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur Klassiker) n 83731844 Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf Friml music piano playing series) no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections (Fehse) no 00038058 Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen Publishing Ltd.) no 99050925 Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.) The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or manifestation title of the compilation. Some of the examples are series authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of aggregate works. For series we were already adding an additional qualifier to distinguish them. Now we are doing it for all works. The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the parenthetical qualifier. Adam Schiff On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote: Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 + From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers like your Best of X's poetry? I have been unable to turn any up and am curious. Thanks. Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have different contents. The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the conventional collective title. The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option. Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example: X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry) Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation is known. LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are being added in subfield $f following a period: X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010 Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.: Selected poems / X Best of X's poetry Both get the collective title Poems. Selections according to 6.2.2.10.2. But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.: X. Poems. Selections (1995) X. Poems. Selections (2010) In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry collections as two different works (which must
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Heidrun posted:
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
Can't comment on the theory, but in practice, our small library
clients do not wish uniform titles apart from the Bible, Shakespeare
and classical music. Most of the same title in two languages
(English/French) are simultaneous publications, so using either as a
240 for the other would be politically difficult. As stated earlier,
we use:
246 1 $iAlso published in French under title:$a[French title].
In French version record,
246 1 $iPubli{acute}e aussi en anglais sous le titre:$a[English title]
We follow the RDA option to always assign a collective title when
lacking, never string part titles in 245. Part titles (with authors
if different) are in 505 and 7XX. We should avoid assigning the same
collective title to two collections by the same author I suppose.
We don't bother with the work/expression distinction, since it does
not exist in either MARC or Bibframe, so don't see it affecting us
during my lifetime.
In the past we have not been concerned if a 245 after 1XX is not
distinctive. Of course there are often manifestations of the same work
with the same 100/245, I've never seen a discussion of the same
100/245 for different works, e.g., Joe, Blow. Selected poems, As
with those 130 (Motion picture) video uniform titles, there are
other differences in the record as a whole. This distinction is not
something easily done to legacy records, so I see no point in
beginning now.
Don't suppose this help, apart from pointing out that some
distinctions we make are irrelevant to most patrons.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
A few comments on this very interesting thread. In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles, but potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about this. (I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.) I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by. I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different position. -- Chew Chiat Naun Director, Cataloging Metadata Services 110D Olin Library Cornell University (607) 254 8031 On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have different contents. The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the conventional collective title. The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option. Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example: X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry) Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation is known. LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are being added in subfield $f following a period: X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010 Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.: Selected poems / X Best of X's poetry Both get the collective title Poems. Selections according to 6.2.2.10.2. But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.: X. Poems. Selections (1995) X. Poems. Selections (2010) In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be necessary in the AAP). I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do others do? Heidrun -- - 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca 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:
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers like your Best of X's poetry? I have been unable to turn any up and am curious. Thanks. Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have different contents. The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the conventional collective title. The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option. Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example: X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry) Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation is known. LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are being added in subfield $f following a period: X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010 Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.: Selected poems / X Best of X's poetry Both get the collective title Poems. Selections according to 6.2.2.10.2. But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.: X. Poems. Selections (1995) X. Poems. Selections (2010) In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be necessary in the AAP). I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do others do? Heidrun -- - 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera liturgica et poetica) n 85278491 Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei) no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur Klassiker) n 83731844 Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf Friml music piano playing series) no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections (Fehse) no 00038058 Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen Publishing Ltd.) no 99050925 Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.) The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or manifestation title of the compilation. Some of the examples are series authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of aggregate works. For series we were already adding an additional qualifier to distinguish them. Now we are doing it for all works. The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the parenthetical qualifier. Adam Schiff On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote: Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 + From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers like your Best of X's poetry? I have been unable to turn any up and am curious. Thanks. Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have different contents. The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the conventional collective title. The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option. Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example: X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry) Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation is known. LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective title must be used instead. Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are being added in subfield $f following a period: X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010 Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9 I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.: Selected poems / X Best of X's poetry Both get the collective title Poems. Selections according to 6.2.2.10.2. But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.: X. Poems. Selections (1995) X. Poems. Selections (2010) In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be necessary in the AAP). I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do others do? Heidrun -- - 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: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca 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
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage: We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output. The punctuation could even differ in different contexts. (We can dream, can't we?) This dream has long since been reality in non-MARC systems. In MARC, it is nothing but an anachronistic leftover from card production, the original primary task fulfilled by MARC. The current movement away from MARC, as LC has finally initiated it, needs to clearly separate field content from labeling and punctuation. However, MARC without labeling and punctuation is very well possible since presentation software can supply all of it, as systems outside MARCistan, and even MARC-based systems, have proven over and again. I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by. There can be no excuse for not recording a title in the title element. This is what even MARC is in fact doing. All that's needed for collections, and this is from long-time experience outside MARCistan again, is not a made-up uniform title but an indicator or flag saying the thing is a collection. This is language-independent. Presentation software again can turn that into Collection or Sammlung or whatever the context requires, placed conveniently where it doesn't irritate but still add to the information displayed. More distinctive collection type information can be left to subject indexing which, intentionally, is to become an integral part of RDA anyway. B.Eversberg To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
