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 Public Library > > > -- 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.
