Where does "controlled access point" fit in? Are there defined access
points in RDA that are not authority controlled? (I guess titles
proper aren't).
We seem to have these categories in the rules:
- descriptive information (mainly text)
- authoritative/controlled access points
- other access points (titles)
- ?? Linking information?
MARC adds the fixed field data, all of which are data of some sort,
and the linking fields.
There's probably a bunch more, I should stop for a bit and think this through.
kc
Quoting John Attig <[email protected]>:
In very general terms, the term "heading" in AACR is the equivalent
of "access point" in RDA.
However, the concept of "access point" is not properly a function of
the communications format (or of the cataloging rules). My
rephrasing of Kevin's point -- and it is one of my pet peeves as
well -- would be that most systems/applications treat the
linking-entry fields (760-787) as access points by *indexing* them
-- and this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing!
By indexing these fields, we make it possible to retrieve the record
in which the fields appear; that is how all indexed access points
work. The linking-entry fields, on the contrary, should point
outward from the record in which they appear to the linked record
which is cited in the linking-entry field. By indexing the
linking-entry fields, the best result that can be hoped for is that
the record referred to will ALSO be retrieved along with the
referring record -- and there are many, many, many reasons why this
often doesn't work and only the referring record is retrieved. Even
if both records are retrieved, it is unlikely to be clear to users
which record is the point of the link.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
[email protected]
On 2/3/2011 12:41 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting "Kevin M. Randall" <[email protected]>:
Fields 760-787 have strictly speaking never been "dual function"
fields, because they are not defined in the MARC format as access
points
This got me excited and I popped into the online MARC documentation
to look at how it defines "access points" but I can't find that. I
could find a definition of headings, but that only covers X00-X30
(thus no titles). Is there a definition of access points that I
missed? Or are you working from other knowledge, Kevin? If so, I'd
like to hear more about this distinction, because it is an
important one and to me it hasn't been clear in practice (from a
systems developer point of view). If it isn't made explicit in our
current standards we should try to make it clearer in any future
ones.
kc
(regardless of whatever functionality may be provided in any
specific system). They are descriptive fields which may include
coded data in subfield $w intended to *refer out* to related
records. If access points are desired for the names/titles
appearing in those fields, 700-730 fields are to be used. (Sorry,
the increasingly common misunderstanding on this point is one of
my pet peeves...)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: [email protected]
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-4345
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
The transcribed fields correspond to ISBD areas 1-4 and 6 (245,
250, 362 [for
serials; other fields for some other formats], 260, and 4XX. Note
fields may
also contain transcribed data in some cases, but note fields typically
consist of a single subfield and are already "consolidated" in this sense.
"Dual function" fields that serve both as notes and as access
points (e.g.,
246, 760-785) might benefit from having these functions disentangled. For
example,
http://lccn.loc.gov/81642892, http://marc21.info/element/246, "Issues for
<2000-> have also acronym title: CCQ."
http://lccn.loc.gov/81642892, http://marc21.info/element/740, "CCQ"
I would be hesitant to combine data from all transcribed fields
into a single
field, if only because different applications might want the freedom to
display different subsets of this data.
Ed
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
