Considering this authority record for the name-title SEE reference (based on
AACR2 22.2B3) ...
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
400 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
I wonder if catalogers are tempted to "fix" this in bibliographic records.
The 400 produces a SEE reference but many OPACs suppress or mangle name-title
headings and/or name-title references in author browse lists.
AACR2 doesn't permit the following-- a 700 to fix what appears to be a lacuna
in AACR2, in a bibliographic record:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003
However, outside of the MARC environment, it might make sense to make the
assertion that both identities (Cunningham and Fast) have a creator
relationship to the work.
The alternative at 6.27.1.3 for authorized access points for collaborative
works where ALL the creators named in resources embodying the work or in
reference sources can be stacked in front of the preferred title is indicative
of a broader flexibility.
Example at 6.27.1.3 alternative:
Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland
archaeological sites in New Zealand
Suppose one takes the work "Cunningham E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia" and replaces it
with an identifier <work 2001021136>
Although not possible in MARC encoding, would it be valid to make these two
assertions about the two identities for Howard Fast/E.V. Cunningham:
<entity Howard Fast> <creator> <work 2001021136>
and
<entity E.V. Cunningham> <creator> <work 2001021136>
Following 19.2, both names are "named first in resources embodying the work"
then it seems both names could be considered core, even though only one is used
for the authorized access point for the work, which is based on "frequency" of
use in resources according to 6.27.1.7.
I also note the example under 19.2.1.3 where "Snoopy, Dr." as author and
"Schulz, Charles M. (Charles Monroe), 1922-2000" as artist are both provided as
authorized access points as creators for the work titled "Dr. Snoopy's advice
to pet owners."
Here, two identities for the same human being are considered creators for the
same work, although for different functions.
Therefore, it would seem logical to make the broad assertion that both
Cunningham and Fast, two identities for the same human being, are creators for
the same work, on the basis of both being named as such in resources, although
not at the same time in those resources.
AACR2's solution is the name-title SEE reference in such a situation. This
AACR2 convention is captured as a variant access point to the work represented
by "Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia." Since the work is one entity (unlike
Cunningham and Fast, which are two identities captured in separate authority
records), then the variant access point makes sense.
But RDA does appear to open the door that two identities for the same human
being can be considered Creators of the work. If both are named together in a
resource, then one is added to the 100 and the other is added to a 700. If both
are named in resources, but never in the same resource, then it seems logical
to assert there are creator relationships for both, even though there is no
allowable way to do this directly in MARC. In a future encoding standard, I
think this would make sense to allow. I do think it would not be tolerated that
a display for the entity "Howard Fast" would not have a direct link to the work
by him, and known to be by him under that form of his name.
And in a cataloging environment no longer dependent on authorized and variant
access points, but just links via identifiers of entities, then it would seem
that the dual Cunningham/Fast creator relationships would be permitted.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
[k...@northwestern.edu]
Sent: October-17-13 6:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Mac Elrod wrote:
> >The point that seems to be missed here is that "Fast, Howard,
> >1914-2003" is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
> >"Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003". It is an authorized access point for
> >a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
> >points; as such, it is entirely appropriate to use one of them in a
> >variant access point for a work entered under the other name,
>
> Are you saying that even if each is a 500 see also reference in the
> authority record for the other, you want *both* as entries (main plus
> added) in the same bibliographic record? I hope not. But this
> new terminology makes it difficult for me to understand what
> you are saying.
>
> To me, a cross reference is a cross reference, whether see or see
> also, and negates the need for an entry under the other form in a
> bibliographic record.
No, I didn't say anything about bibliographic records. This is currently
handled correctly, in our current MARC environment, by a 400 field in the
AUTHORITY record:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
400 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
The authority records for Cunningham and Fast have the reciprocal 500 fields to
relate the two names to each other.
The authority record for the work "Sylvia" has the authorized access point
under the name of Cunningham, and a variant access point under the name of
Fast, since there are manifestations that use that name.
The bibliographic record for a manifestation will only use the authorized
access point for the work: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Right now, the confusing mess of MARC/ISBD data in our bib records makes it
difficult to see which pieces are this RDA element or that RDA element. The
future should be much, much easier.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
