[RDA-L] Multipart monographs - Questions about the 490 $3 and the repeat-ability of the 264

[Leigh Billings]

Hello all,

I'm learning RDA basically through copy cataloging other RDA records, and
at the moment I'm adding later volumes to a multipart monograph. The item
in hand is v.11 of a set, which is the first volume in the set to be a part
of a series as well, and a new publisher.

I'm planning on following LC PCC PS 2.12.1.5 Not All Issues or Parts in a
Series for the 490, which says use the $3 and not a separate note.  My
question here is, do I use the abbreviation, or not? I'm also having a hard
time figuring out whether I should put the note in English or Croatian
(Volume vs. Kniga), and then whether or not the note is abbreviated. There
are four examples given in 2.12.1.5, with three in English  and one in
Italian, and two of them use volumes in the $3 and two of them use v..
I can infer (as the Italian-language one uses v., which is the
English-language abbreviation and not the Italian language abbreviation (volume
(Italian) - vol.) according to Appendix B), that this really is a note that
can be in the language of the cataloging agency, so I can use v. and not
knj. However, RDA's B.5.11 implies that I shouldn't be abbreviating it at
all, so I feel like volumes is the correct answer (but then why are there
two examples that include abbreviations?!).

Also, there was a change in publisher in later volumes. I know the 264 is
repeatable and allows a $3, which should allow me to say things like
 264(31) $3 volumes 11- : $a New Town : $b New Publisher Name, but in RDA
(2.8.1.5) all I see is that it says to make a note when the publisher
changes, with no indication as to whether I should record the change in a
264. I don't see a similar LC PCC PS for the alternate publisher as there
is for the 490, so is the only thing required a note, even though MARC
allows for (what I consider) better access through a second 264?

Thanks in advance for any input,

Leigh

-- 
Leigh Billings (redn...@umich.edu)
Slavic Cataloger
International Studies
University of Michigan Library
112-F North Hatcher Graduate Library
913 S. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205
(734) 647-3819

Re: [RDA-L] Question about conventional collective titles (6.2.2.10.3)

[Leigh Billings]

I'm not sure if I'm reading RDA correctly here, but I'm going to paraphrase
what I think RDA is saying:

6.2.2.10: If the compilation is known by a distinctive title already, go
ahead and use that as the preferred title (i.e., 240 if necessary).
Otherwise:
6.2.2.10.1: If the compilation is a collection of all of the authors works,
give *Works *as the preferred title.
6.2.2.10.2: If the compilation is a collection of all of the authors works
in a single form, give the that as the preferred title. (i.e.*Short stories*
)
6.2.2.10.3: If the compliation is selections of the author's works, then
give access to those works in analytical entries OR (reading the *
Alternative*)  identify the work with a conventional collective title (as
above; Selections, Plays, Essays, etc.) with *Selections *appended (you may
also give analytical added entries for the individual works as well)

I read LC's PCC PS at this point as saying Choose this alternate way:
Instead of giving each work it's own analytical added entry, add a
Conventional collective title (Such as Short Stories. Selections. English)
plus ONE authorized access point for the first or major work that's
included in this compilation

I'm still a bit confused by that example as to how to give access to the
compiled works: Is the first example two works only in one volume and they
use the first work as the 240 and the second with a 700(12)? Not sure. But
anyway, that's how I read it, and it would help explain why your
collection, with a distinctive title, gets a Conventional Collective Title.

~Leigh Billings

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.eduwrote:

 I think this angle didn't come up in the previous thread.  If so, I
 apologize in advance.

 Under AACR2, we were not to apply a conventional collective title to a
 collection of works like poems or short stories that had a distinctive
 title proper.  I'm wondering if people will continue to observe this rule
 (as a rule of thumb, perhaps?).

 Piece in hand.
 Title proper: There once lived a girl who seduced her sister's husband and
 he hanged himself
 Conventional Collective Title: Short Stories. English. Selections. 2013

 The title proper is certainly distinctive, and there is no name-title
 authority record that records the relationship of the conventional
 collective title to the work (the collection), but I find the conventional
 collective title in the bibliographic record.

 RDA 6.2.2.10.3 doesn't seem to speak to this issue, and the LC PCC PS is
 about whether to give authorized access points for the subordinate parts,
 not for what to do with the preferred title of the collection as far as I
 can tell.

 Thanks

 --
 Adger Williams
 Colgate University Library
 315-228-7310
 awilli...@colgate.edu




-- 
Leigh Billings (redn...@umich.edu)
Information Resources Cataloging Specialist
Slavic, East European  Eurasian Division of Area Programs
University of Michigan Library
111-C North Hatcher Graduate Library
913 S. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1190
(734) 647-3819