Actually, "heading" in AACR2 is the equivalent of "authorized access point" in RDA. Any element (or word in an element) can be an access point if your system indexes that information.
Judy Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Attig Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Linked data 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 >> > > >
