Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
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- $t Add kids, stir briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700
duplicating the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the
alternate title, which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in
either 246 or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a
much simpler solution to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as
making no sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing,
and certainly with display. They see the $i as being more like a note
than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory
about relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and
actual library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and
instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Agree that it would be better to always use 7xx. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:49 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
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you suggesting
that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-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: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
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- $t Add kids, stir briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700
duplicating the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the
alternate title, which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in
either 246 or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a
much simpler solution to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as
making no sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing,
and certainly with display. They see the $i as being more like a note
than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory
about relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and
actual library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and
instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. 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)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. 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? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
If 240 moves to 700 or 730, then we'd be made up, because that's exactly how
we've been managing what it looks like RDA's supposed to be doing for years! In
our catalogue, as in many, if you put the uniform title as an additional title
rather than the main title, it means when you put in that uniform title, you
get a list of everything with it as an added title - which is, in practice,
what the emphasis on 'work' over 'expression' is all about, isn't it? With the
240 putting in uniform title as main title, you only get a list of the same
title repeated, without extrapolation of which version it is beyond the
somewhat limited controlled language of 240. and searching by the title of
the specific version rather confusedly comes up with the top line 240, which is
doubly confusing
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and actual
library users.
Or Cataloguers with contact with the same, it often seems.
Martin Kelleher
Metadata Manager
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio
Sent: 04 October 2013 13:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you suggesting
that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-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: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
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- $t Add kids, stir
briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700 duplicating
the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the alternate title,
which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in either 246
or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a much simpler solution
to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as making no
sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing, and certainly with
display. They see the $i as being more like a note than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory about
relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and actual
library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
It is a long time since I was first learning to catalog and not sure if the rules in this area have changed. I do not often add 240's to records I create locally, and don't change many in records downloaded from other sources. That being said, my understanding of 240's to give a title that historically has had different names under one uniform title, eg. Aesops fables as a title, rather than Fables of Aesop. It was also used for the foreign language title for a work that was translated, even if the foreign languate title did not appear on the book. The 246 was to show variations to a title when it appears different ways on the book, or a subtitle that because of typography or location may be considered the title by patrons looking for the book. Or cover or spine titles, again because patrons may be looking for the book under that alternate title. It did appear on the book. The 246 replaced the former 740. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
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
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
What is the effect on filing and display in the OPAC? Despite all promises made at the beginnings of computerization over 40 years ago, the sort in computer systems has never, in my opinion, been as good as the card catalog, organized according to the LC filing rules. Only once, at an ALA meeting, did I find something that came close. So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will patrons see? How is this envisioned? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell 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
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
What I was thinking of was: 100 Smith, John 240 Poems. Selections 245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. In catalog: 245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau. If 100/240 is eliminated: 130 Nature (Vanity Press) 245 Nature / selected poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. If a one author compilation: 100 Smith, John. 240 Poems. Selections. 245 The sea / John Smith. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections 245 The sea : selected poems / Joan Jones. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections. French 245 La mer / Joan Jones. In catalog: 245 The sea : essays by 20th century authors. 245 La mer : essays on Debussy's tone poem. If 100/240 is eliminated, becomes: 130 Sea (Smith) 245 The sea / selected poems by John Smith. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 130 Sea (Jones) 245 The sea : poems of a sailor / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. 130 Mer (Jones) 245 La mer / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. French. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
But what *is* the 130 in your examples? The AAP for the work/expression is in the 700 field. In MARC, the meaning of the 130 is uniform title main entry heading (AACR2) or authorized access point for a work entered under title (RDA). What kind of construction is Nature (Vanity Press), and where in RDA do you find any kind of guidelines calling for it? Kevin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points What I was thinking of was: 100 Smith, John 240 Poems. Selections 245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. In catalog: 245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau. If 100/240 is eliminated: 130 Nature (Vanity Press) 245 Nature / selected poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. If a one author compilation: 100 Smith, John. 240 Poems. Selections. 245 The sea / John Smith. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections 245 The sea : selected poems / Joan Jones. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections. French 245 La mer / Joan Jones. In catalog: 245 The sea : essays by 20th century authors. 245 La mer : essays on Debussy's tone poem. If 100/240 is eliminated, becomes: 130 Sea (Smith) 245 The sea / selected poems by John Smith. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 130 Sea (Jones) 245 The sea : poems of a sailor / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. 130 Mer (Jones) 245 La mer / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. French. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
No. I am suggesting that in cases where we would now use 1XX/240 to record the
authorized access point for the work or expression we use 7XX instead.
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 Mary Mastraccio
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:42 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you suggesting
that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-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: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
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- $t Add kids, stir
briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700 duplicating
the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the alternate title,
which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in either 246
or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a much simpler solution
to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as making no
sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing, and certainly with
display. They see the $i as being more like a note than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory about
relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and actual
library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Or perhaps, Beedle|c(Bard: Fictitious Character)? On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, rball...@frontier.com rball...@frontier.com wrote: I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally entered under the author J.K. Rowling. The cover shows Rowling's name alone. The title page, however, reads: The tales of Beedle the Bard / translated from the ancient runes by Hermoine Granger ; commentary by Albus Dumbledore ; introduction, notes and illustrations by J.K. Rowling. Should the AAP now be under Granger rather than Rowling, with additional access points for Dumbledore and Rowling? Thanks in advance. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools 1511 Catalpa St. Fort Wayne IN 46802 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points - some thoughts
There are two types of relationships being discussed here, in moving 240 to a 700 name-title access point. Primary relationships (RDA 17), such as Work Manifested, are for relationships like work-to-manifestation relationships. Related works (RDA 25) include whole-part relationships, such as the 'contains (work)' relationship, which is a work-to-work relationship. The LC-PCC policy statement for RDA 17 was moved to RDA 25 for two or more works in a resource. This means that the whole-part relationship between the analytical works and the compilation is emphasized, instead of saying that each work in isolation is a Work Manifested related directly to the manifestation. The policy statement for RDA 17 refers to RDA 25 but also to RDA 6. I take this to mean that the individual elements that go into identifying the single work manifested or compilation can still be entered in a 240 field. But there has been a recognition that MARC (the 'current implementation scenario') doesn't fully support having an authorized access point for a work serving as the value for a Work Manifested element. The same limitation is highlighted in the MARC-RDA bibliographic examples-- one can implicitly map a 1XX+240 (or even a 1XX+245) to an authorized access point and a Work Manifested element-- but not explicitly in MARC encoding: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_apr0913_rev.pdf To get it to work would require new MARC codes. Adding $t to 100 doesn't work well, as it overburdens the 100 field, especially now that designators can also be added for the 100 creator relationship to the work. Perhaps there should be a Work Manifested (or Expression Manifested) indicator for a 7XX, separate from second indicator '2' for an analytical work. The 130 and 1XX+240 would be moved there, and, following the RDA examples, the 1XX+245 title proper could also be duplicated there as authorized access points for works when applicable. RDA has already eliminated one use of the 240 -- for the first of two works in a compilation: Example (AACR2 25.7A): 100 Dickens, Charles 240 Hard times 245 Dickens' new stories 700 Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy Example (RDA): 100 Dickens, Charles 245 Dickens' new stories 700 Dickens, Charles. Hard times 700 Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy There are three works in total here: the collective work and the two individual works. In RDA elements, one has: Work Manifested: Dickens, Charles. Dickens' new stories Related Work: Dickens, Charles. Hard times Relationship Designator: contains (work) Related Work: Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy Relationship Designator: contains (work) That's all separate from: Creator: Dickens, Charles Relationship Designator: author (creator relationship to the compilation: Dickens, Charles. Dickens' new stories) and Title Proper: Dickens' new stories (transcribed manifestation element that is re-used in turn for the work element, Preferred Title for the Work). Some observations: RDA elements identifying works can be found in both MARC bibliographic and authority records. In many ways, bibliographic records serve as stand-ins for authority records for works, which has added to the confusion. The individual elements, such as Preferred Title for the Work, can serve various purposes for indexing, filing, and searching. RDA separates out the recording of each element from the process of constructing authorized access points (the instructions for authorized access points are always stuck at the end of the respective chapters for each entity). Authorized access points are treated as special identifiers for entities, are put to use as values for relationship elements in the second half of RDA. The authorized access point for the work serves a function as connecting entities together through relationship elements. This could involve connecting the Work to the Manifestation (or to the Expression), but also connecting a Work to another Work (as in a whole-part relationship). The main problem in MARC is that several fields (such as 100 and 245) can serve several of these different functions, and entering duplicate text strings is avoided by overlaying different functions on these MARC codes. The ideal would be to have separate encoding for each different function, as we want each separate individual element to serve user needs such as finding and identifying entities, and we want to connect entities so users can find and navigate the relationships between those entities. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Mary said:
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you
suggesting that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
The thread began (as the subject line indicates) with how to handle
alternate titles. I suggested a 246 for the alternate title, but not
the first portion of the title. I also said that in MARC the or
should be followed by a $b as is and for collections without a
collective title (we prefer a supplied title, with individual titles
in 505).
Clients never want a 700 which duplicates the 100.
For simultaneous publications, neither can be considered the
translation of the other, and in a bilingual country neither langauge
can be given prececence. A Quebec library would not want an English
uniform title for a French item which may be the original version.
So in this case, yes, 246 rather than 240. e.g.,
246 1 $iAlso published in French under title:$a[French title].
In French version record,
246 1 $iPubli{acute}e aussi en anglais sous le titre:$a[English
title]
I'm not the best person to comment on uniform titles in general. We
are often asked to recode them, particularly if they are in a language
other than that of the text (the collection does not have the other
language version to be united with this one), or if the 130 has
(Motion picture) and the item is a video (which they see as
misleading).
Most want unique 240s and 130s made 730s. Shakespeare and music are
exceptions to this.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
Jennifer quoted Neil:
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 ...
That is a very* good point, and a reaction I had to the earlier 700
suggestion, when the only work in the manifestation was that one work.
It was misleading.
As another poster just remarked, more communication is needed between
theorists and actual library users.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
Michael Borries said:
So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will
patrons see? How is this envisioned?
Our clients tell us that they see two hits for the same item with an
author search, one for the 100 and one for the 700, making patrons
think there are two items. The do *not* want a 700 which duplicates
the 100.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] question about Publisher Name
I think if AACR2 clearly says Shortest Form, and RDA still allows Omission of Levels, and LC/PCC only says Generally Not to Omit, I'd stick with the AACR2 way, at least until machines take over. It is to the point and sufficient, consistent with past practice, and at least still not against RDA rules, even if not specifically recommended there. Transcribe what you see can be carried too far without achieving any additional purpose beyond ease for machine transcription. Jack Heidrun Wiesenmüllerwiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de 10/4/2013 12:42 PM I had hoped for many answers to Alison's interesting question, but they don't seem to be forthcoming. So here are my 5 cents (Euro cents, as it were): In my opinion, the scope of 2.8.4.1 doesn't rule out transcribing the complete statement. Have a look at AACR2 1.4D2: The rule there was, as we're all aware, to give the name of a publisher, distributor, etc., in the shortest form in which it can be understood and identified internationally. The third example had Da Capo Press, Inc., a subsidiary of Plenum Publishing Corporation in the source of information. According to AACR2, this was of course shortened to Da Capo. But there is no evidence that AACR2 did not judge the bit a subsidiary of Plenum Publishing Corporation as being part of the name of the publisher. So, I think that according to RDA it would be perfectly possible to transcribe Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier. However, personally I'm not in favour of this. I agree that the optional omission in 2.8.1.4 (Omit levels in a corporate hierarchy that are not required to identify the publisher.) allows leaving out the information about the superordinate level (it's a pity there are no examples, though). The LC-PCC PS says Generally do not omit levels in corporate hierarchy. I think the generally here gives you some freedom decide that in some cases it does make sense to leave out a level of hierarchy. It would have been nice if the case of imprints had been explicitly mentioned in the LC-PCC PS, though. Now let me explain why I'd prefer to leave out the information about the imprint. I can think of at least three possible ways in which such an information can appear in the resources: #1: a statement like X, an imprint of Y #2: X on the title page, with an additional information, e.g. on the verso of the title page: X is an imprint of Y #3: X on the title page, but Y on the verso of the title page, e.g. in a copyright statement (here I can deduce und usually easily verify that X is an imprint of Y, but it doesn't say so explicitly on the resource) In cases #2 and #3, I don't really see how I could reasonably give the imprint information in the publication statement. In both cases, I would simply take X from the preferred source of information and leave it at that. Therefore I'm reluctant to treat #1 differently. But admittedly, you could argue that the different presentation in the resource warrants a different treatment in the description. Heidrun On 02.10.2013 16:15, Alison Hitchens wrote: Hi all I’ve had several people ask me about what to record for Publisher Name when they see something like “Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier.” On the one hand publication place and name are transcribed as they appear on the source of information (2.8.1). On the other hand the scope for publisher name is “the name of a person, family, or corporate body responsible for publishing, releasing, or issuing a resource.” (2.8.4.1) So in transcribing the publisher name are you really just transcribing the Academic Press part because that is what fits the scope? Another interpretation would be that this statement is showing corporate hierarchy in which case it would fit under the LC/PCC policy to generally not omit the hierarchy. There are no examples in RDA at 2.8.4.3 showing a phrase like this. Any opinions? I’m leaning towards telling people to treat it like hierarchy and transcribe the whole statement but wanted to check my interpretation Thanks! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980 -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
For the compilation with poems by Smith and Jones, you are providing access to the works of Smith and the works of Jones via 700 a/t, but the title of the compilation as a work in itself is conflicting with other compilation titles in 245 $a with the same title proper. I think you are a right with regard to single author compilations, but then that leaves 245 $a for the single author compilation still conflicting with multi-author compilations with the same title proper. So, it means we can't break the conflict because it would effectively create a second AAP for the same work/expression. We would then have one practice for single author compilations and a different practice for multiauthor compilations which would result in what appears to be an inconsistent display in the catalog. This is probably limited to the MARC environment. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points But what *is* the 130 in your examples? The AAP for the work/expression is in the 700 field. In MARC, the meaning of the 130 is uniform title main entry heading (AACR2) or authorized access point for a work entered under title (RDA). What kind of construction is Nature (Vanity Press), and where in RDA do you find any kind of guidelines calling for it? Kevin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points What I was thinking of was: 100 Smith, John 240 Poems. Selections 245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. In catalog: 245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau. If 100/240 is eliminated: 130 Nature (Vanity Press) 245 Nature / selected poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. If a one author compilation: 100 Smith, John. 240 Poems. Selections. 245 The sea / John Smith. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections 245 The sea : selected poems / Joan Jones. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections. French 245 La mer / Joan Jones. In catalog: 245 The sea : essays by 20th century authors. 245 La mer : essays on Debussy's tone poem. If 100/240 is eliminated, becomes: 130 Sea (Smith) 245 The sea / selected poems by John Smith. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 130 Sea (Jones) 245 The sea : poems of a sailor / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. 130 Mer (Jones) 245 La mer / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. French. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
If the creator's name is part of the AAP, there is no conflict, unless the combination of name and preferred title are the same[footnote]. The title proper of one work being the same as the title proper of a different work is not in itself a conflict. Conflicts only apply to *authorized access points*. If no creator's name is part of the AAP, *then* there would be a conflict between Nature and other resources that have the preferred title Nature and no creator's name as part of the AAP. If we're saying that we'll put the AAP into 700 a/t instead of 100/24X, then you need to view the 245 as being *only the title proper*. It can be the same as thousands of other things, but that doesn't matter because it's only the title proper of the manifestation. The job of identifying the work/expression falls to the AAP (as RDA is currently being applied in our environment). --Kevin [footnote] There is a problem in the examples you give: you do not have unique AAPs for the works by John Smith. They all have the same AAP: Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections The Sea is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known* by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be Nature and The sea, since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator, the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes considerably more sense to have the following AAPs: Smith, John. Nature Smith, John. Sea -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points For the compilation with poems by Smith and Jones, you are providing access to the works of Smith and the works of Jones via 700 a/t, but the title of the compilation as a work in itself is conflicting with other compilation titles in 245 $a with the same title proper. I think you are a right with regard to single author compilations, but then that leaves 245 $a for the single author compilation still conflicting with multi-author compilations with the same title proper. So, it means we can't break the conflict because it would effectively create a second AAP for the same work/expression. We would then have one practice for single author compilations and a different practice for multiauthor compilations which would result in what appears to be an inconsistent display in the catalog. This is probably limited to the MARC environment. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
A translator is not a creator, so they would never be used in the authorized access point for the work, unless in addition to translating they adapted the work so much that it it becomes a new work (“translated and RETOLD by Hermione Granger”). Granger would get a 700 added entry. You can take statements of responsibility from anywhere in a book, so it doesn’t matter that Rowling’s name isn’t on the title page. She is asserted as the creator it seems, and so she is in the AAP. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: rball...@frontier.com Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally entered under the author J.K. Rowling. The cover shows Rowling's name alone. The title page, however, reads: The tales of Beedle the Bard / translated from the ancient runes by Hermoine Granger ; commentary by Albus Dumbledore ; introduction, notes and illustrations by J.K. Rowling. Should the AAP now be under Granger rather than Rowling, with additional access points for Dumbledore and Rowling? Thanks in advance. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools 1511 Catalpa St. Fort Wayne IN 46802
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
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
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
The 240 field for RDA would be used for a resource that consisted of a single work with a creator, where the title proper of the manifestation is not the preferred title of the work. In addition, the 240 would be used for an expression other than the original of that single work with a creator. RDA doesn't have the concept uniform title - instead works have preferred titles. If the combination of creator (1XX) and preferred title does not result in a unique authorized access point, then you must also add something to the preferred title to distinguish it, e.g.: 100 1_ Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. 240 10 Miss Lulu Bett (Novel) 245 10 Miss Lulu Bett / $c by Zona Gale. 100 1_ Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. 240 10 Miss Lulu Bett (Play) 245 10 Miss Lulu Bett : $b a play / $c by Zona Gale. In the examples above, the preferred title for both works is Miss Lulu Bett. Ordinarily if the preferred title is the same as the title proper in 245 $a, no 240 would be needed, but in the situation above we have two different works with the same preferred title by the same creator, so a 240 is needed as well (because the authorized access points for these two works must be different). Adam L. Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points It is a long time since I was first learning to catalog and not sure if the rules in this area have changed. I do not often add 240's to records I create locally, and don't change many in records downloaded from other sources. That being said, my understanding of 240's to give a title that historically has had different names under one uniform title, eg. Aesops fables as a title, rather than Fables of Aesop. It was also used for the foreign language title for a work that was translated, even if the foreign languate title did not appear on the book. The 246 was to show variations to a title when it appears different ways on the book, or a subtitle that because of typography or location may be considered the title by patrons looking for the book. Or cover or spine titles, again because patrons may be looking for the book under that alternate title. It did appear on the book. The 246 replaced the former 740. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Steven, If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a 130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all. So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You suggested the name of the publisher, as in Sea (Vanity Press). But it could just have easily been something like Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005) or many other formulations. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. 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)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. 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? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Both work titles and conventional collective titles fall under the category of preferred titles. I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break the conflict in such cases, but conventional collective titles are assigned deliberately to collocate different works/expressions. I thought that was the rationale for dropping $f from conventional collective titles. My understanding is that a compilation is a collection of distinct works, and that the compilation is in itself a work. Unless the compilation has been published multiple times with different titles, its work title is for all practical purposes its manifestation title. Don't we currently treat a monograph published for the first time in the same way? (I believe it has been argued that all bibliographic records should include MARC 130 or 240 for the work title even if it is the same as the manifestation title, though it seems impractical at present.) So, that would imply that different works with the same manifestation title proper can have conflicting work titles (here I mean work titles, not conventional collective titles) and in that case the work title is made explicit in 130 with a qualifier to break the conflict. If you have 2 compilations of essays about John Rawls, and both have the title proper John Rawls, under RDA one of the records will need a 130 John Rawls (qualifier). Isn't something similar done with serials? With regard to 6.2.2.10, I don't agree with this interpretation. The plural resources would exclude compilations published for the first time. The intent clearly is meant to apply to works that were popular or significant enough to be published or cited multiple times. It then follows that, for a first time publication, you either follow 6.2.2.10.1 for complete works or 6.2.2.10.3 for selected works. For the latter, you either follow the default rule to record each of the titles in the compilation or the alternative in the PS to assign a conventional collective title and (piling it on!) optionally recording the individual titles as well. Since the alternative is identified as LC practice, technically other PCC libraries have the option to follow the default rule and not make a conventional collective title for selections, but it would seem to me that this would create an unfortunate inconsistency in our catalogs and possibly in the Name Authority File used by PCC and most other libraries. The made up examples were created under the assumption that the Alternative was being applied. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If the creator's name is part of the AAP, there is no conflict, unless the combination of name and preferred title are the same[footnote]. The title proper of one work being the same as the title proper of a different work is not in itself a conflict. Conflicts only apply to *authorized access points*. If no creator's name is part of the AAP, *then* there would be a conflict between Nature and other resources that have the preferred title Nature and no creator's name as part of the AAP. If we're saying that we'll put the AAP into 700 a/t instead of 100/24X, then you need to view the 245 as being *only the title proper*. It can be the same as thousands of other things, but that doesn't matter because it's only the title proper of the manifestation. The job of identifying the work/expression falls to the AAP (as RDA is currently being applied in our environment). --Kevin [footnote] There is a problem in the examples you give: you do not have unique AAPs for the works by John Smith. They all have the same AAP: Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections The Sea is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known* by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be Nature and The sea, since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator, the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes considerably more sense to have the following AAPs: Smith, John. Nature Smith, John. Sea -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
[RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
So, do they only want one subject per record, fearing that users will discover
the same book twice if there are two subjects, and so on?
When I was a classics major, I used to get duplicate hits in the card catalog,
if I searched under the original language of the work and its translation (at
the time, the rules required two headings for a work with translation, one for
the original, and another for the translation, as RDA does now, but the heading
for the original was the main entry). I didn't mind -- I was happy to have
found the book. I wonder if there is a study about this. At present, it seems
to me that all we are working on is our preferences.
I will say, however, that if a book contains two works by Charles Dickens, and
two readers each do an author search, one looking for title A, one for title B,
they should each be able to find the same book that has both titles, doing, as
I said, the same author search. In my opinion, if that does not happen, the
catalog, and catalogers, have not done their job properly.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:13 PM
To: Michael Borries
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
Michael Borries said:
So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will
patrons see? How is this envisioned?
Our clients tell us that they see two hits for the same item with an author
search, one for the 100 and one for the 700, making patrons think there are two
items. The do *not* want a 700 which duplicates the 100.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Steven Arakawa wrote: Both work titles and conventional collective titles fall under the category of preferred titles. I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break the conflict in such cases, but conventional collective titles are assigned deliberately to collocate different works/expressions. I thought that was the rationale for dropping $f from conventional collective titles. Yes, the primary purpose of conventional collective titles seems to be to collocate. However, in RDA we also have the requirement to make the authorized access point unique. Therefore, you cannot assign Smith, John. Poems. Selections to more than one work. You need to add something to make the access point unique for each collective work it is being assigned to. (BTW, I would argue that while it is certainly very useful to be able to collocate the collected works of a creator, by type of work and completeness aspect, I don't see any compelling reason to make that function be the overriding factor in giving a name to the work. *Especially* when such a name serves more to obscure the identity of the work.) My understanding is that a compilation is a collection of distinct works, and that the compilation is in itself a work. Unless the compilation has been published multiple times with different titles, its work title is for all practical purposes its manifestation title. Don't we currently treat a monograph published for the first time in the same way? (I believe it has been argued that all bibliographic records should include MARC 130 or 240 for the work title even if it is the same as the manifestation title, though it seems impractical at present.) So, that would imply that different works with the same manifestation title proper can have conflicting work titles (here I mean work titles, not conventional collective titles) and in that case the work title is made explicit in 130 with a qualifier to break the conflict. If you have 2 compilations of essays about John Rawls, and both have the title proper John Rawls, under RDA one of the records will need a 130 John Rawls (qualifier). Isn't something similar done with serials? Yes, that is all correct. But note that in these cases we're talking about the uniqueness of the *name/title combination*. The compilations of essays about John Rawls would need to have qualifiers added to the AAPs in order to make them unique. But since the book John Rawls by Catherine Audard has the AAP Audard, Catherine. John Rawls it does not need to have anything more added to it to make it unique (unless Audard happened to create another work with the title John Rawls). In most implementations of MARC, this AAP is coded as the two fields 100 2# $a Audard, Catherine. and 245 10 $a John Rawls. If we were to move the AAP into 700, it would be 700 1# $a Audard, Catherine. $t John Rawls. Because we've moved the AAP to the 700 field, don't look at the 245 any more as having anything to do with identifying the work. It's only giving the title proper of the manifestation. It doesn't matter at all that it isn't unique; that function is served by the AAP for the work and expression. With regard to 6.2.2.10, I don't agree with this interpretation. The plural resources would exclude compilations published for the first time. The intent clearly is meant to apply to works that were popular or significant enough to be published or cited multiple times. It then follows that, for a first time publication, you either follow 6.2.2.10.1 for complete works or 6.2.2.10.3 for selected works. For the latter, you either follow the default rule to record each of the titles in the compilation or the alternative in the PS to assign a conventional collective title and (piling it on!) optionally recording the individual titles as well. Since the alternative is identified as LC practice, technically other PCC libraries have the option to follow the default rule and not make a conventional collective title for selections, but it would seem to me that this would create an unfortunate inconsistency in our catalogs and possibly in the Name Authority File used by PCC and most other libraries. The made up examples were created under the assumption that the Alternative was being applied. That is an incredibly strict reading of the word resources in 6.2.2.10. I *truly* cannot believe that the JSC intended that the first sentence in that guideline meant that the original title appearing on a compilation could only be used as the preferred title if there were more than one manifestation! By following such logic, *any* collection published for the first time would need to get 6.2.2.10.1-3 treatment, if it were cataloged right after publication; but if we waited for a while, and it were republished, then we'd look to see if the titles on the two manifestations were the same, and if so we could then follow 6.2.2.4-5. Bizarre... I
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Adam, that makes sense, but we still end up with an additional AAP (and an authority record?) in whichever tag, don't we? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven, If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a 130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all. So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You suggested the name of the publisher, as in Sea (Vanity Press). But it could just have easily been something like Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005) or many other formulations. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. 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)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. 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? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Steven, Yes, probably, unless we agree not to always provide an work access point for the compilation itself. We have already basically agreed not to do that for compilations of works by different entities without a collective title (6.27.1.4 alternative, where LC/PCC decision is not to apply the alternative; you would only apply it probably if you need to reference the compilation when cataloging some other resource). In the interim, the title proper of the first resource in the manifestation represents the compilation as a whole (probably not such a useful thing). Maybe we only give AAP for compilations by different persons, families, corporate bodies in which no individual analytic access points are being made (e.g., collection of poems or essays or articles by various authors)? And then in other cases, if the compilations needs to be referenced elsewhere (as a related work or subject) then retrospectively we go back and differentiate that compilation if its title is the same as another work whose AAP would also just be a title. Just thinking out loud Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:54:08 + From: Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam, that makes sense, but we still end up with an additional AAP (and an authority record?) in whichever tag, don't we? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven, If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a 130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all. So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You suggested the name of the publisher, as in Sea (Vanity Press). But it could just have easily been something like Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005) or many other formulations. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re:
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote: Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. That's what I don't understand in the current thread. Why would 1XX/240 be replaced by 7XX a/t? Why would we not simply use the long-defined but never used subfields in the 1XX fields? I.e., 1XX/240 becomes 1XX a/t, as they are in authority records. For systems that don't have authority control modules that can be configured to authorize 1XX/240 combos (and for those that can, but where doing so just introduces other problems), we'd all finally be able to authorize name/title AAPs in the 1XX... I'd love to get rid of the 240, but moving the data to a 7XX doesn't make sense to me. Later, kt
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
steven Arakawa posted:
I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break
the conflict in such cases ...
Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as
Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the
same preferred title if they are by the same person, but that is a
rare problem.
The best way to avoid the title proper of the first work in a
collection being the title proper of the collection, is to supply a
collective title, and record the individual work titles in 505.
If at least one of two identical titles proper has a GMD, our clients
consider that different GMD as distinction enough, and do not want a
130 or 240. (That's one of the reasons some want GMDs inserted in RDA
records.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] ACOC and CILIP responses to JSC proposals
The following ACOC and CILIP responses for the November 2013 JSC meeting are available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html ): 6JSC/ACOC/8/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/22/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/24/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/25/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/26/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/Discussion/1/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA/Discussion/3/CILIP response 6JSC/ALA rep/6/CILIP response 6JSC/CCC/11/CILIP response 6JSC/CCC/14/CILIP response 6JSC/Chair/8/CILIP response 6JSC/DNB/1/CILIP response 6JSC/DNB/2/CILIP response 6JSC/Discussion/1/CILIP response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/2/ACOC response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/2/CILIP response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3/ACOC response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3/CILIP response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/4/ACOC response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/4/CILIP response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/5/ACOC response 6JSC/EURIG/DIscussion/5/CILIP response 6JSC/LC/23/CILIP response 6JSC/LC/24/CILIP response 6JSC/LC/25/rev/CILIP response 6JSC/LC/26/CILIP response 6JSC/LC rep/4/CILIP response 6JSC/Music/1/CILIP response 6JSC/Music/2/rev/CILIP response 6JSC/Music/3/CILIP response Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
