I guess I just don't have a problem with saying that a manifestation
contains a single work. The manifestation is just a physical (or
remote-access) object. It's a packaging device. So I don't have any
trouble with the notion that the package could contain one work or
expression. I think this "contains" vs. "is" issue is a red herring. The
manifestation is NOT an expression. The expression of the work is contained
(manifested) in the manifestation.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenifer K Marquardt
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I forwarded this discussion to our music cataloger, Neil Hughes. With his
permission, I am sharing his response below. On my own behalf, I have to
say that I would miss the 240 most when it represents the original language
title for the translation being cataloged. I realize that part of this is
related to display, but I do like to see, right up front and in connection
with the translated title, the information about the original version. With
the 240 there is instantaneous recognition of the translation without having
to read notes or interpret 7xx fields.
Here are Neil's comments.
The music cataloging community intended to add a subfield $t, etc., to the
1xx field, not just put everything in 7xx fields. That would require a
revamping of MARC that I think is probably too late to undertake. (The
changes to our databases would be enormous, too.) That said, at least for
music it would be impossible now to follow RDA as-written and just do away
with the 240 without ALSO implementing the 1xx + subfield $t concept,
because of the instructions for constructing authorized access points for
musical works and expressions.
For example: say you have the following score representing a single work by
one composer. The 100 and the 245 are as follows:
100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881.
245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by
M. Ravel.
But that 245 title isn't the AAP for that work (in either AACR2 or RDA). So,
right now in RDA, we do:
100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881.
240 10 Kartinki s vystavki; $o arranged
245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by
M. Ravel.
The current LC-PCC PS says that the 245 subfield $a must EQUATE to the AAP
in order not to need the 240. The only way to make this work, i.e., still
have the composer in the creator role in the 1xx AND have an AAP associated
with the creator (who can't really be put in a 7xx -- a lot of this is
obviously caused by the MARC data structure, but that's what we're dealing
with!) is to do this instead:
100 1_ Mussorgsky, Modest Petrovich, ǂd 1839-1881. $t Kartinki s vystavki;
$o arranged
245 10 Pictures at an exhibition / $c Modeste Moussorgsky ; orchestrated by
M. Ravel.
If one were simply to substitute a 7xx, what relationship designator would
one use? It isn't really correct to say "Contains (expression)" (all
arrangements are considered to be expressions). It IS an expression; it
doesn't "contain" one, the way a compilation or aggregate work might (e.g.,
a sound recording including several different pieces of music). As long as
we're dealing with MARC, where 7xx analytics represent either related works
or included/contained works or expressions, simply doing away with the 240
will not suffice. Or at least certainly not for music.
Neil
and 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 Robert Maxwell
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 7:49 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-)
I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be
willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly.
(or alternately, without the relationship designator)
700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly.
instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression
authorized access points?
Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording
all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from "we've always done
it that way")?
At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using
1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if
there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this
exception for just one work/expression?
In my opinion it would be better for training (e.g., you only have to
explain one way to record an AAP for a work/expression) and better for
systems (e.g. OCLC and most other systems can't control 1XX/240, but can
control the string in 7XX; and many can't index the name-title if it's split
into two MARC fields) if we abandoned the clumsy 1XX/240 and instead
consistently record the information in 7XX.
Note: on the issue Kevin brings up about the 1XX itself, making this change
does not necessarily make using 1XX for the creator unnecessary-that would
be a separate discussion. I'd just like to sound people out about the
possibility of making 240 obsolete in RDA bibliographic records. This
doesn't necessarily mean we would also abandon 1XX altogether.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-----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: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Adam Schiff wrote:
100 1_ Owens, Jo, $d 1961-
240 10 Add kids, stir briskly
245 10 Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life /
$c Jo Owens.
Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required
in an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the work
manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title 246s be
required?:
246 30 Add kids, stir briskly
246 30 How I learned to love my life
Or would only the second 246 for the alternative title suffice in an
RDA record?
Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a
*variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there
in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing
would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system
indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add
redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific
deficiencies.
** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could
be given:
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir
briskly.
You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This
is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the
direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the
creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA
guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the
creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of
the times people have argued that "main entry" isn't needed in online
catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary
context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various
WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't
apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA
chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing
*manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the
expressions/works that are involved.)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
