Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Hi, Perhaps this same idea has been stated and I missed it. If not, how about going for the full title as title proper in each case. I know in doing this we'd have to forget that the first ISBD is supposed to separate title proper from subtitle. Use a different punctuation and take out sub-field b delimiter is one way; the other way is to leave everything in 245s the way they are, but add a 246 field title that includes the distinguishing terms of a report or summary. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University j...@franciscan.edu Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 8/27/2012 5:44 PM 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): $t Water availability in the Ovens Again, I think I need to break the conflict here by adding a qualifier. I thought perhaps of using (Summary) but I've not seen this done in any other situation. Just wondering what advice you might have about this sort of situation. Thanks, Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Jack Wu said:
Perhaps this same idea has been stated and I missed it. If not, how about =
going for the full title as title proper in each case.
There are many cases of short titles proper (such as the name of a
country, or surname of an person) where the addition of a distinctive
subtitle to the access point would be helpful. One way to do that now
is to substitute a comma for the :$b in 245, thus making subtitle
part of title proper.
A better way would be for the rule to allow the addition of all or a
portion of a distinctive subtitle to an indistinctive title proper, as
first option before a qualifier is considered.
There is also the reverse stupidity of making alternate titles part of
title proper. There is no difficulty in having $b before and for
collections; why balk at or
Using distinctive subtitle seems such a simple, logical, and intuitive
for patrons solution.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
28.08.2012 19:29, Brenndorfer, Thomas: RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items use all of these conventions except authorized access points): 1. identifier 2. authorized access point 3. structured description 4. unstructured description. ... The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same elementary information about a relationship between specified entities. The big question is: To whom can those conventions convey their meaning? Only 1. and 2. can convey it to a program in order to elicit any action from it, beyond merely displaying it. And that's what we want, more often than not: to make relationship information actionable. Then however, the desired actions may vary according to the nature of the relationship: whether we have a translation, a summary, an updated edition, or whatever. All of this mandates machine-actionable linking, and qualifiers to determine the semantics of a link. And since there may be more than one such link per record, the identifier or access point has to be combined with the qualifier in one field. And not, for example, the preferred title in a 730 and a vernacular qualifier in a 370. Is there a vocabulary of standardized qualifier terms anywhere, for this purpose? If not, make one and make its use mandatory, make it a core subelement for relationships to work and expression. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: 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? As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea. A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good uniform consistent identifier of the work. The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and designator. A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for authorized access points for works. The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into $a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct elements. I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point made for the government of Australia ... It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it, Recipient body: seems appropriate. The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element serves as the basic indicator of the relationship. One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions). Among these are: Creator Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work Contributor Publisher Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture these broader elements. 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. One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other approaches. This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions are practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention. Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can also serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for the Work is one element; Form of Work is another; Distinguishing Characteristic Element is another. Some of these elements, such as Date elements, lend themselves to normalization routines, such as ISO standards. No longer does one have to think of these elements solely as fitting into one constricted display, like a jigsaw puzzle, but difficult to work with after-the-fact in extracting and utilizing that data more effectively. Focusing on aspects anchored on the traditional display has limited prospects. By utilizing the entity-relationship model, RDA offers a conventional method that is used to create consistent results in data management. There's a much larger canvas that one can paint on with RDA, and there are prospects of solving many problems. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title to distinguish it from others. I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the same work, then what. The uniform title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it? On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: 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? As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea. A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good uniform consistent identifier of the work. The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and designator. A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for authorized access points for works. The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into $a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct elements. I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point made for the government of Australia ... It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it, Recipient body: seems appropriate. The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element serves as the basic indicator of the relationship. One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions). Among these are: Creator Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work Contributor Publisher Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture these broader elements. 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. One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other approaches. This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions are practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention. Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can also serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for the Work is one element; Form of Work is another; Distinguishing Characteristic Element is another. Some of these elements, such as Date elements, lend themselves to normalization routines, such as ISO standards. No longer does one have to think of these elements solely as fitting into one constricted display, like a jigsaw puzzle, but difficult to work with after-the-fact in extracting and utilizing that data more effectively. Focusing on aspects anchored on the traditional display has limited prospects. By utilizing the entity-relationship model, RDA offers a conventional method that is used to create consistent results in data management. There's a much larger canvas that one can paint on with RDA, and there are prospects of solving many problems. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
LCPS 6.27.1.9 The catalog when testing for conflict. Define the catalog as the file against which the searching and cataloging is being done. In addition, catalogers (including LC overseas offices' catalogers) may take into account any resource with the same authorized access point of which they know, whether or not it is in the catalog. Do not take into account variant access points. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: August 28, 2012 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title to distinguish it from others. I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the same work, then what. The uniform title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it? On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.camailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: 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? As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea. A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good uniform consistent identifier of the work. The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and designator. A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for authorized access points for works. The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into $a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct elements. I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point made for the government of Australia ... It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it, Recipient body: seems appropriate. The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element serves as the basic indicator of the relationship. One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions). Among these are: Creator Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work Contributor Publisher Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture these broader elements. 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. One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other approaches. This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions are practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention. Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can also serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for the Work is one element; Form of Work is another
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best. Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a national government? -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -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 20:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful. Thanks Joan On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote: Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best. Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a national government? -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -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 20:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question 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. -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I think one key idea is that the relationships exist regardless of the convention used to capture the relationship between two entities. RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items use all of these conventions except authorized access points): 1. identifier 2. authorized access point 3. structured description 4. unstructured description. A specifically encoded relationship designator can usually be applied to options 1 to 3. The free text of an unstructured description (essentially just a note) can use the same vocabulary as the designator. Some MARC conventions allow for tags, subfields and indicators to map to specific relationship designators, and new MARC conventions (such as $i) are placeholders for these designators. Designators are also populating SEE ALSO references in RDA authority records. (Relationships not only can exist whether we encode them or not, the historic conventions we've used - bibliographic records and authority records - also don't determine whether these relationships exist. Rather it's a matter of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of any one convention, and there are many weaknesses in traditional cataloging conventions.) Authorized access points (heading construction) and structured descriptions (ordered by areas of description usually) have their own set of conventions and issues, and may not be the method used for creating relationships in the long term. RDA also allows for identifiers to link entities. Those linked records or sets of descriptive data will have discrete data elements that are not necessarily ordered into authorized access points or structured descriptions. In databases what gets displayed to end-users is not usually the identifier but data elements assembled for display purposes. The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same elementary information about a relationship between specified entities. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: August 28, 2012 12:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful. Thanks Joan On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best. Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a national government? -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question 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
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
John Hostage wrote: Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best. Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. Our current MARC environment is not ideal for handling RDA data. MARC Bibliographic records technically are describing manifestations, but also include elements relating to work and expressions, because there's nowhere else for those things to go. So yes, in a traditional MARC-based catalog system, the authority records are pretty much overkill. But when we have a data infrastructure that's friendlier with RDA, we'll have less duplication between data in records (for lack of a better term at the moment) for the FRBR Group 1 entities. Things analogous to the authority records that Adam Schiff created will likely be part of the normal cataloging routine; they will be the work/expression records to which the manifestation records will relate. If system developers allow catalogers to be involved in cataloging interface design, the creation of work/expression/manifestation records should be even *easier and faster* than traditional MARC cataloging in systems such as OCLC Connexion. But I'm not holding my breath... Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a national government? I agree with John that the relationship of Australia to this resource has little bibliographic significance in regard to RDA chapter 19. I think the subject relationship (RDA chapter 23) is sufficient. 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
Learn a lot. Thanks to Thomas. Joan Wang llinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: I think one key idea is that the relationships exist regardless of the convention used to capture the relationship between two entities. ** ** RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items use all of these conventions except authorized access points): ** ** 1. identifier 2. authorized access point 3. structured description 4. unstructured description. ** ** A specifically encoded relationship designator can usually be applied to options 1 to 3. The free text of an unstructured description (essentially just a note) can use the same vocabulary as the designator. Some MARC conventions allow for tags, subfields and indicators to map to specific relationship designators, and new MARC conventions (such as $i) are placeholders for these designators. Designators are also populating SEE ALSO references in RDA authority records. (Relationships not only can exist whether we encode them or not, the historic conventions we’ve used – bibliographic records and authority records – also don’t determine whether these relationships exist. Rather it’s a matter of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of any one convention, and there are many weaknesses in traditional cataloging conventions.) ** ** Authorized access points (heading construction) and structured descriptions (ordered by areas of description usually) have their own set of conventions and issues, and may not be the method used for creating relationships in the long term. ** ** RDA also allows for identifiers to link entities. Those linked records or sets of descriptive data will have discrete data elements that are not necessarily ordered into authorized access points or structured descriptions. In databases what gets displayed to end-users is not usually the identifier but data elements assembled for display purposes. ** ** The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same elementary information about a relationship between specified entities.*** * ** ** Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* August 28, 2012 12:50 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question ** ** According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful. Thanks Joan On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.edu wrote: Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3). In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2). For machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best. Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction. Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a national government? -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -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 20:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question 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
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Summary would be recorded as Other distinguishing characteristics of the work Here's the authority record I created (no2012115406): 130 _0 $a Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) 381 __ $a Summary 410 2_ $a CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. $t Water availability in the Ovens 530 _0 $i Summary of (work): $a Water availability in the Ovens (Full report) $w r The 381 field is where the other distinguishing characteristic (which can be any word or phrase) is recorded as a separate element. But LCPS 0.6.4 says to always add the element used to differentiate one entity from another to the access point itself, whether or not that element is also recorded separately: When recording elements to differentiate the authorized access point of a person, family, or corporate body from that of another person, family, or corporate body, always add one or more differentiating elements to the access point. Use judgment in deciding whether to also record these elements as separate elements and whether to record additional identifying elements (those not needed for differentiation) as separate elements. ^^ 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, Gene Fieg wrote: Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title to distinguish it from others. I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the same work, then what. The uniform title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it? On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: 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? As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea. A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good uniform consistent identifier of the work. The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and designator. A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for authorized access points for works. The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into $a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct elements. I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point made for the government of Australia ... It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all possibilities. Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it, Recipient body: seems appropriate. The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element serves as the basic indicator of the relationship. One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions). Among these are: Creator Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work Contributor Publisher Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture these broader elements. 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. One thing RDA does is step back from the whole
Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Gene Fieg wrote: Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title to distinguish it from others. I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the same work, then what. The uniform title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it? The question depends on what the preferred title for the work that is a summary of another work is. If it is different than the original work, then this is not a problem. In my situation, both the original work and the summary have the same preferred title, so a qualifier is needed to differentiate them: ORIGINAL WORK (the full report): Manifestation title: Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. Preferred title: Water availability in the Ovens DERIVATIVE WORK (the summary): Manifestation title: Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. Preferred title: Water availability in the Ovens To differentiate these two related works, I needed an authorized access point for each with a different qualifier. So for each I added an other distinguishing characteristic of the work to differentiate them: Authorized access point for original: Water availability in the Ovens (Full report) Authorized access point for derivative: Water availability in the Ovens (Summary) Now if the summary didn't have the same preferred title, we wouldn't have to do what I did. For example, if the summary had this manifestation title: Summary of Water availability in the Ovens its preferred title would be: Summary of Water availability in the Ovens Now there is no conflict, so I would not have needed to include a 130 field in each of the bibliographic records to distinguish them. --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 * **
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
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/
___} |__ \__
