No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized access point for the work.
The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields. RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of works. To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3: Form of Work - 380 $a Date of Work - 046 $k Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only) Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a In the MARC environment, the burden for differentiating lies mostly with the use of qualified authorized access points (and RDA anticipates this use as well-- it's just that RDA doesn't assume authorized access points are the only way ever to do this). These same qualifying elements are strung along the access point until the condition of uniqueness from the LC-PCC Policy Statement is met. In the current environment, authorized access points for works (130 or 1XX+240) aren't created for every record. But when they are created, the policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to differentiate works by creating unique authorized access points for works. The goal is not "to have a unique title for every work." The goal is to supply all the elements necessary to differentiate the work from other works so that when users are looking at the bibliographic data they can know which work is involved. Because only the Preferred Title for the Work is initially a core element, other elements should be brought in. In RDA, any element becomes a core element if the resource or entity is not differentiated from another entity. With RDA we can meet this requirement by: 1. have a stack of discrete work elements starting with Preferred Title for the Work (in some future scenarios, this may be the only method) 2. qualify the authorized access point for the work with those same elements 3. both approaches (for example, copying and normalizing Date of Work in 046 $k is a useful idea -- even if it's not also needed in an authorized access point for a work) To compare these approaches, have a look at the MARC-RDA examples of authority records: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/examples_of_rda_authority_records_041113.pdf The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to understand than the MARC records. When trying to understand bibliographic data, I now routinely start with the RDA approach, and then work backwards to understand the complexities and shortcomings of the MARC/AACR2 approach. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [[email protected]] Sent: October-05-13 11:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper Steven quoted RDA: >"If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a >title for a different work ... differentiate them ..." To resort of pre FRBR/RDA language we all understand, I think this mist be understood as saying: "If the preferred title [main entry] for a work is the same as or similar to a title for a different work ... differentiate them ..." Conversely, one may as does the PS, understand "preferred title" too mean authorized access point. It is clearly impossible to have a unique title for every work. This demonstrates why we we the MRIs as opposed to the Toolkit. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected]) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
