Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Adam and Kevin, Thanks for the examples. Now I understand much better what this is all about. Perhaps a comparison with the German rules is of interest here. The older German cataloging code, the Prussian instructions (1899/1908), had elaborate rules for collective titles. But with the development of the RAK rules in the 1970s, these were much reduced. RAK only knows one single collective title ([Sammlung], i.e. [Collection]); so there is no works, novels etc., and no selections. The RAK rule for the collective title isn't much in use nowadays. I think that most people feel (wrongly, I suppose) that it was only relevant in the age of card catalogs. But anyway, here's what the rule says: Make an added name-title entry (Name of author: [Collection] or Name of author: [Collection] Language]) under the following conditions: - if only the titles of the individual works are on the source of information (there is no title for the whole) - if the title of the collection is of a generic type, e.g. Collected works, Schiller's plays, Letters from the years ..., Selected philosophical writings a.s.o. I think this comes close to Kevin's idea of when a collective title should be used. Editions of poems or books of photographs or some such of one person do not fall under this rule. They are not treated as collections, but as single works. This makes a lot of sense to me: When a poet publishes a book of poems under a specific title, he or she will probably think of this as *one* work. Now back to RDA. After some more thinking, I wonder whether the problem might be that we're mixing up two quite different things: The question of what is the title of the work with a need for collocating certain types of publication. As it stands, RDA seems to fall short in two ways: 1. As Kevin has already pointed out, it is quite odd not to use a distinct title (perhaps even one chosen by the author) as the title of the work. Also, the decision which cases fall under the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 must be very difficult, so I'm not surprised that the application is somewhat arbitrary. 2. The collocation mechanism doesn't work as well as it should, because the cases treated unter the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 would not come up under the collective title. Could we perhaps solve these problems by clearly distinguishing between the title of the work on the one hand and the mechanism for collocation on the other? If you think about it, something like Short stories. Selections isn't *really* a title of the work. It is rather a description, telling us it is a collection and giving information about the genre and the degree of completeness. These are certainly attributes of the work, but it's not the title. In RDA, they should be placed somewhere else, probably in chapter 7, and they should be recorded in every case, quite regardless of whether the title is distinct or generic. The reason for disguising information about genre etc. as the title of the work may be that this is one of the few work elements which are recorded in the composite description - and therefore can be used for collocation. If we had records for every work, and these were linked with the manifestations, we could record information like collection, genre and completeness as separate elements in the work record. Then a user could search the records for the works for the combination of a certain author, collection and e.g. short stories, and also ask for all manifestations linked with these work records. I remember that ALA mentions the aspect of genre as a desideratum in their excellent discussion paper on the treatment of subjects: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#6ala-discussion2. This was welcomed in the German response: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-2-DNB-response.pdf Heidrun On 07.10.2013 17:41, Kevin M Randall wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases? I do think that the expectation behind RDA 6.2.2.10 is that most compilations published in modern times will be entered under the title appearing on the resource. The guidelines in .1-.3 are for those instances in which there is no collective title (like the Barnes and Noble editions of classic works that have only the author's name and the titles of the individual works included), or perhaps has only the creator's name in a title position on the resource, or just the creator's name and a generic title like Novels, Stories, etc. The increasingly common practice of applying the conventional collective title even to things that have their own title is, in my opinion, just bizarre. Not only that, it is quite inconsistent; for instance, it is applied *much* more often to poetry collections than it is to short story collections. Why don't we see books of Stephen King's short
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Concerning the default procedure for collective titles, the LCRI says: Except as noted in LCRI 25.9 and LCRI 25.10, assign a collective uniform title to an item at the first instance of appropriateness, e.g., do not defer the adding of a collective uniform title until the file under the heading is voluminous. 25.8-25.11. Collective Titles https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-8-25-11-collective-titles There is also LCRI 25.10. Works in a Single Form https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-10-works-in-a-single-form Rule 25.10A applies to collections of three or more works in one form when the author writes (or is assumed to write) in two or more forms. The purpose of the rule is to provide a sensible gathering point in the catalog for items whose titles are more or less inadequate. Thus, if a collection covered by 25.10A has an adequate title, the rule should not be applied. These rules probably explain much of the assignment of collection uniform titles. Assign at first instance, and there can be different opinions concerning whether a title is adequate. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
snip For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record. Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation we add to it to become intelligible for the human reader. Only just don't display that in a space where anyone expects a title. snip Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works, I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to something else probably. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Am 08.10.2013 08:27, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: Could we perhaps solve these problems by clearly distinguishing between the title of the work on the one hand and the mechanism for collocation on the other? There should be no excuse to record in a title field something that is not a title. This is a most important A aspect, not just some D aspect, like most of the topics raised and ruminated here. For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record. Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation we add to it to become intelligible for the human reader. Only just don't display that in a space where anyone expects a title. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
Thomas said snip No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized access point for the work. The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields. RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of works. To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3: Form of Work - 380 $a Date of Work - 046 $k Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only) Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a snip If we can add all these distinguishing characteristics to make the preferred title unique, why can't we add the most salient distinguishing characteristic of all to make the preferred title unique, the author? You can say that the relationship between the creator and the work is a different kind of relationship from the relationship between the date of composition and the work or the form of the work and the work, or the place of origin of the work and the work, or other distinguishing characteristics (yipes, who knows what kinds of relationship to the work these may have; why do we have to dance around so much to avoid the creator here?). On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized access point for the work. The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields. RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of works. To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3: Form of Work - 380 $a Date of Work - 046 $k Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only) Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a In the MARC environment, the burden for differentiating lies mostly with the use of qualified authorized access points (and RDA anticipates this use as well-- it's just that RDA doesn't assume authorized access points are the only way ever to do this). These same qualifying elements are strung along the access point until the condition of uniqueness from the LC-PCC Policy Statement is met. In the current environment, authorized access points for works (130 or 1XX+240) aren't created for every record. But when they are created, the policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to differentiate works by creating unique authorized access points for works. The goal is not to have a unique title for every work. The goal is to supply all the elements necessary to differentiate the work from other works so that when users are looking at the bibliographic data they can know which work is involved. Because only the Preferred Title for the Work is initially a core element, other elements should be brought in. In RDA, any element becomes a core element if the resource or entity is not differentiated from another entity. With RDA we can meet this requirement by: 1. have a stack of discrete work elements starting with Preferred Title for the Work (in some future scenarios, this may be the only method) 2. qualify the authorized access point for the work with those same elements 3. both approaches (for example, copying and normalizing Date of Work in 046 $k is a useful idea -- even if it's not also needed in an authorized access point for a work) To compare these approaches, have a look at the MARC-RDA examples of authority records: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/examples_of_rda_authority_records_041113.pdf The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to understand than the MARC records. When trying to understand bibliographic data, I now routinely start with the RDA approach, and then work backwards to understand the complexities and shortcomings of the MARC/AACR2 approach. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: October-05-13 11:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper Steven quoted RDA: If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a title for a different work ... differentiate them ... To resort of pre FRBR/RDA language we all understand, I think this mist be understood as saying: If the preferred title [main entry] for a work is the same as or similar to a title for a different work ... differentiate them ... Conversely, one may as does the PS, understand preferred title too mean authorized access point. It is clearly
[RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
08.10.2013 15:20, Adger Williams: snip For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record. Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation we add to it to become intelligible for the human reader. Only just don't display that in a space where anyone expects a title. snip Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works, I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to something else probably. Right. And it is questionable if we are in need of an entity at all. The only non-question is that a title field is for titles only and not for artifacts no one except catalogers would expect and accept in the place of a title. If a physical volume contains more than one piece that might be cited by or even published under its own title, then each of these pieces represents a work and merits a record of its own and a correct recording of its title so as to make it findable as such just as it will likely be cited as such. But FRBR is one among many concepts that are fine in theory but don't work in practice. If we follow Immanuel Kant on this, we'll have to use practical judgment where the general rules of a theory fail to tell us how to put them into practice. With regard to collections, we have always been practitioners who have judged this way or that not by pure principles *alone* but by economic concerns as well. With cards, we were not able to cope with too many titles in one physical item, so we used judgment that somehow made sense with cards amd their arrangement in the filing cabinets. To carry this over 1:1 into the database world seems to fall short of a technical potential that runs far beyond the economic constraints of yesteryear. Time for revised judgment. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Adger Williams wrote: Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works, I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to something else probably. I think that the collection as a whole is a work as well, containing other works. So it should be possible to have work records for collections, which in turn are linked to the individual works. True, some aspects of work records for collections are very tricky, but I think that the problems could be solved. Actually, there is work being done in this area by some colleagues from DNB. Heidrun Postscript: I know that my simplistic view is not in line with the results of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates, but I still think that the model they've come up with is a misconception. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I think the heading for Ender Wiggin should have $c before (Fictitious character) and it was just left out accidentally. I did a search on the name file for Fictitious character and found several others with the same problem. Establishing fictitious characters in the name file rather than the subject file is a new practice that was just announced a couple of months ago, so that may account for some of the inconsistency. Michelle --- Michelle Cronquist North Caroliniana Cataloger Special Collections Technical Services CB#3926, Wilson Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919-962-6901 919-962-3594 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 10:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams Sent: October-08-13 10:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper Thomas said snip No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized access point for the work. The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields. RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of works. To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3: Form of Work - 380 $a Date of Work - 046 $k Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only) Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a snip If we can add all these distinguishing characteristics to make the preferred title unique, why can't we add the most salient distinguishing characteristic of all to make the preferred title unique, the author? You can say that the relationship between the creator and the work is a different kind of relationship from the relationship between the date of composition and the work or the form of the work and the work, or the place of origin of the work and the work, or other distinguishing characteristics (yipes, who knows what kinds of relationship to the work these may have; why do we have to dance around so much to avoid the creator here?). RDA 5.5 indicates that if the authorized access point for the work (i.e., in name-title form) is used to represent the work, then the differentiating elements are applied when the authorized access point is not unique. RDA 5.3, in making these extra attribute elements 'core' for differentiating reasons, covers the situation when authorized access points are not used (i.e. not in the current MARC scenario). I do think that specifying a relationship to a responsible agent does the job of differentiating as well-- for example, an easy way to differentiate translations is to specify the translator relationship to the expression. In fact, the original FRBR report indicates the range of user tasks for that kind of relationship covers exactly that premise. While RDA focuses on the 'Find' user task of the relationship between a Creator and a Work (RDA 18.2), the original FRBR report specifies that the relationship also serves the 'Identify' and 'Select' user tasks. But that handful of elements in RDA 5.3 has value beyond their role for disambiguating entities. Date of Work is useful generally for identifying the work when people are looking for the work that came out a particular year (such as with motion pictures). Form of Work is a nascent element at this point, as the whole form/genre infrastructure in cataloging needs more attention. There is a difference between attribute elements and relationship elements. As an attribute, Form of Work, is limited to the data present in the field. As a relationship element, Form of Work would become like a subject access point (like a 655). As an entity, Form of Work would have its own attributes and its own separate relationships (such as hierarchical relationships as seen in subject headings). But the reality today, in the current MARC environment, is that 5.5 governs, in that authorized access points for works (in name-title form) are used, and the only time differentiating elements are required is when there is a conflict in access points. That being said, I do see RDA 5.3 as opening the door for the changes necessary to move past this limited use of this data as derived from AACR2 for constructing headings. In RDA, 'core' elements are defined primarily in their role for disambiguating entities. But the elements should be added on their own as separate elements anyways, even if not needed for differentiation, mostly because they assist users in other ways such as 'Identify' (as in confirm resource described is resource sought) and 'Select.' That applies to both these attribute elements, and the relationship elements or subelements such as Creator or Translator. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
The first one is simply incorrect and should be fixed. The other designation element (Fictitious character) should be coded in $c of the personal name. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
[RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
smime.p7m Description: S/MIME encrypted message
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I would agree with Adam that the 100 field should be corrected. Since the 400 field has the |c, I would take its absence in the 100 to be simply a typo or somebody's oversight. 100 1_ |a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) --- 400 1_ |a Wiggin, Andrew |c (Fictitious character) It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). Do others agree? If I were still at a NACO library, I might go ahead and correct both headings (unless I've missed something somewhere with regard to the Holmes heading). Michael Bernhard Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System 501 Copper Avenue NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Tel: (505) 768-5119 Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov http://www.cabq.gov/library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Thanks. I thought that must be the case but needed the validation. As Michelle Cronquist noted, I'm seeing a mix of records with the |c variously applied or not. I'm still not at all comfortable with the reissued name authority record for Holmes, Sherlock. But that's probably just my inexperience with fiction cataloging. I enjoy reading it, I just don't get the opportunity to catalog it much. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -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: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) The first one is simply incorrect and should be fixed. The other designation element (Fictitious character) should be coded in $c of the personal name. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 7:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently?
[RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Michael Bernhard said: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). I would like this clarified. In the same load I had a number of name authorities the 2 that were presented as sometime authors of books no longer had any qualifier. Is this a mistake or are we to interpret the fact that RDA does not require the qualifier to mean that it will be removed when a character is intended to stand as an author/creator? As an example, one was the new name authority record for 600 10|a Fletcher, JessicaThis record also lacked the entire |c (Fictitious character) subfield that existed on the cancelled subject record. All of the reissued Wiggin name authorities had the qualifier. Some just didn't have the delimiter. Trying to make some sense out of this. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
This access point for Wiggin, Ender was first established by BYU *without* a qualifier, following LC's instructions only to add qualifier to these access point if there was a conflict. Somebody at BL took it upon themselves to add the qualifier (without the appropriate subfield coding, as you note). I do not think it was appropriate to change this access point, since there was no conflict at the time it was established and there is no new conflict now. (Subsequently somebody at Washington corrected the subfield coding). The access point for Wiggin, Peter was first established by BYU *with* a qualifier (correctly coded) because there *was* a conflict with another Peter Wiggin. 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 FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Hi all We had an internal library discussion on this just as the questions started to come in on the list! The LC PCC statement at 9.0 is: Fictitious Entities and Real Non-Human Entities LC practice/PCC practice: Apply this chapter to fictitious entities and real non-human entities following the guidelines below: No LCSH Authority Record Exists Create a name authority record for the entity following RDA instructions and NACO guidelines, whether needed as a creator, contributor, etc., under RDA, or needed only for subject access. Do not create a subject proposal for LCSH. LCSH Authority Record Exists If needed as a creator, contributor, etc., under RDA, create a new name authority record and notify the Policy Standards Division (pol...@loc.gov) to cancel the existing subject authority record. Optionally, a new name authority record may be created for such an entity if needed only for subject access. If a name authority record is created, notify the Policy Standards Division (pol...@loc.gov) to cancel the existing subject authority record. Future activity: A project to transition all fictitious and real non-human entities from LCSH will be conducted as resources are available. At 9.19.1.1 on constructing the authorized access point: Make the additions specified at 9.19.1.2 even if they are not needed to distinguish access points representing different persons with the same name. And fictitious character is included in 9.19.1.2 with the example Holmes, Sherlock (Fictitious character) So, I'm not sure why it is being applied depending on whether or not there is a conflict. I can't see a policy statement at 9.19.1.1 or 9.19.1.2 contradicting the RDA instruction but perhaps I'm just missing it. Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors Michael Bernhard said: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). I would like this clarified. In the same load I had a number of name authorities the 2 that were presented as sometime authors of books no longer had any qualifier. Is this a mistake or are we to interpret the fact that RDA does not require the qualifier to mean that it will be removed when a character is intended to stand as an author/creator? As an example, one was the new name authority record for 600 10|a Fletcher, JessicaThis record also lacked the entire |c (Fictitious character) subfield that existed on the cancelled subject record. All of the reissued Wiggin name authorities had the qualifier. Some just didn't have the delimiter. Trying to make some sense out of this. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Surely we include fictitious character for these names? Do we really want them to look like real people? Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.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: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:37 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) This access point for Wiggin, Ender was first established by BYU *without* a qualifier, following LC's instructions only to add qualifier to these access point if there was a conflict. Somebody at BL took it upon themselves to add the qualifier (without the appropriate subfield coding, as you note). I do not think it was appropriate to change this access point, since there was no conflict at the time it was established and there is no new conflict now. (Subsequently somebody at Washington corrected the subfield coding). The access point for Wiggin, Peter was first established by BYU *with* a qualifier (correctly coded) because there *was* a conflict with another Peter Wiggin. 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 FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not much experience with fictitious characters. I do edit our base library records occasionally they have a number of Card's titles. I'd send this to LChelp4rda but I am guessing they are not back at work as yet. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Bernhard, S. Michael mbernh...@cabq.gov wrote: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). Do others agree? If I were still at a NACO library, I might go ahead and correct both headings (unless I've missed something somewhere with regard to the Holmes heading). Nothing missed. The authority record was created before July of this year when Fictitous character monikers and such were sanctioned for use in RDA. No one's gotten around to updating the 100 and 368 fields yet. (The 040 $d DLC, it seems, refers to the merging of the old subject heading record to http://lccn.loc.gov/no2013039964.) -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
No one should be correcting authorized access points that were correctly established under current policy, which is to include the qualifier if there is a conflict but otherwise not. 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Bernhard, S. Michael mbernh...@cabq.govmailto:mbernh...@cabq.gov wrote: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). Do others agree? If I were still at a NACO library, I might go ahead and correct both headings (unless I've missed something somewhere with regard to the Holmes heading). Nothing missed. The authority record was created before July of this year when Fictitous character monikers and such were sanctioned for use in RDA. No one's gotten around to updating the 100 and 368 fields yet. (The 040 $d DLC, it seems, refers to the merging of the old subject heading record to http://lccn.loc.gov/no2013039964.) -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: No one should be “correcting” authorized access points that were correctly established under current policy, which is to include the qualifier if there is a conflict but otherwise not. But the material of 9.6.1.7 falls under the 9.19.1.2 group of additions that are applied to AAPs regardless of conflict. Unless you're referring to the core status laid out in the back half of the blue text below 9.6. Did I miss something here? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to the record for Holmes, Sherlock): *** ... Regarding the issue of whether 9.19.1.2 f) should be applied, this is a source of ongoing debate because of the contradiction between the Core Element statement at 9.6 and the instruction in 9.19.1.1. 9.6 says, Other designation associated with the person is a core element for a Christian saint or a spirit. For other persons, other designation associated with the person is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name. However, 9.19.1.1 says to make the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 regardless of whether they are needed to break a conflict. The intent of the JSC in approving 6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4 last year was NOT to automatically add the additions specified in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g). However, because 9.19.1.1 was not changed, we are left with a contradiction. So for now, it is a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) even in cases of non-conflict, and it is also a valid interpretation to say that when creating a new NAR, you only add a term of the type in 9.19.1.2 e), f), and g) to break a conflict. Since this is an existing NAR, you should not change the 1XX form unless a the need to break a conflict arises. The British Library has done another JSC proposal to address this contradiction (6JSC/BL/13). This new proposal will be discussed at the JSC meeting in DC in November 2013. ... Kate James Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress *** 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edumailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: No one should be correcting authorized access points that were correctly established under current policy, which is to include the qualifier if there is a conflict but otherwise not. But the material of 9.6.1.7 falls under the 9.19.1.2 group of additions that are applied to AAPs regardless of conflict. Unless you're referring to the core status laid out in the back half of the blue text below 9.6. Did I miss something here? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to the record for “Holmes, Sherlock”): Thanks for the reminder, Bob. Looking through my inbox, I held on to and highlighted Kate's original message, but don't remember having read it. I'm also one who expects these sorts of details--temporary though they are--to be posted somewhere on the NACO site if not in the LC-PCC PS. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
[RDA-L] new edition
Hi, If a statement of edition includes a diference in geographic coverage, it can be new edition. Would you please offer an example? Thanks -- Maliheh Dorkhosh, MLIS Tehran North Branch of IAU Head of cataloging department of the central library and documentation center. University of Tehran http://organizing.blogfa.com/
