Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Robert Maxwell]

Yes, I agree that different selections (whether compilations of works or 
compilations of parts of works) are different aggregate works, and so need to 
be identified separately.

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 Adam Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:47 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I think no one has thought of that one yet, Pete!  We don't have examples of 
such in the NACO training materials and I haven't run across one in authority 
records (but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done.  Would like to hear 
what Bob Maxwell thinks about this.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message-
From: Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Thanks for these and your later set of examples, Adam.

Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a 
single larger work, rather than collective works?  Certainly there is no reason 
to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would have the 
same content as another.  Are we making headings like:

Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of Paradise 
lost)

or

Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)?

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections 
(Opera liturgica et poetica)

n  85278491  Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k 
Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei)

no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur
Klassiker)

n  83731844  Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf Friml 
music & piano playing series)

no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections
(Fehse)

no 00038058  Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen 
Publishing Ltd.)

no 99050925  Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.)

The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or 
manifestation title of the compilation.  Some of the examples are series 
authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of 
aggregate works.  For series we were already adding an additional qualifier to 
distinguish them.  Now we are doing it for all works.

The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the 
parenthetical qualifier.

Adam Schiff

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:

> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
> From: "Wilson, Pete" 
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
> Access
>     
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
>
> Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have 
> qualifiers like your "Best of X's poetry?"  I have been unable to turn 
> any up and am curious.  Thanks.
>
> Pete Wilson
> Vanderbilt University
>
> -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: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
>
> They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they 
> have different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional 
> work element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing 
> characteristic) to the conventional collective title.  The date is 
> probably NOT the best thing to add, although it's one option.  Many 
> NACO libraries are adding the title proper of the collection instead, 
> since it may better aid in identification, for example:
>
> X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)
>
> Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to 
> consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by 
> which the compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that 
> the compiled work does not becom

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[M. E.]

Wilson, Pete  wrote:

> Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a
> single larger work, rather than collective works?  Certainly there is no
> reason to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would
> have the same content as another.  Are we making headings like:
>
> Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of
> Paradise lost)
>
> or
>
> Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)?
>

Doing so would follow the same principle as distinguishing between
selections of full sets of works.  It wouldn't surprise me if there are
some music headings out there that do this.  Here's one example of a
textual work:

 Euler, Leonhard, ǂd 1707-1783. $t Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra. $k
Selections $s (Ebert)




-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Adam Schiff]

I think no one has thought of that one yet, Pete!  We don't have examples of 
such in the NACO training materials and I haven't run across one in 
authority records (but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been done.  Would 
like to hear what Bob Maxwell thinks about this.


Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message- 
From: Wilson, Pete

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Thanks for these and your later set of examples, Adam.

Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a 
single larger work, rather than collective works?  Certainly there is no 
reason to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would 
have the same content as another.  Are we making headings like:


Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of 
Paradise lost)


or

Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)?

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections 
(Opera liturgica et poetica)


n  85278491  Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k 
Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei)


no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur 
Klassiker)


n  83731844  Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf 
Friml music & piano playing series)


no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections 
(Fehse)


no 00038058  Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen 
Publishing Ltd.)


no 99050925  Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.)

The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or 
manifestation title of the compilation.  Some of the examples are series 
authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of 
aggregate works.  For series we were already adding an additional qualifier 
to distinguish them.  Now we are doing it for all works.


The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the 
parenthetical qualifier.


Adam Schiff

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
From: "Wilson, Pete" 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access


To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have 
qualifiers like your "Best of X's poetry?"  I have been unable to turn any 
up and am curious.  Thanks.


Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work 
element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to 
the conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best 
thing to add, although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding 
the title proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in 
identification, for example:


X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to 
consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which 
the compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled 
work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time 
(e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a 
conventional collective title must be used instead.


Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the 
date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC 
these are being added in subfield $f following a period:


X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message-
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred 
Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) 
and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing

Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Wilson, Pete]

Thanks for these and your later set of examples, Adam.

Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a 
single larger work, rather than collective works?  Certainly there is no reason 
to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would have the 
same content as another.  Are we making headings like:

Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of Paradise 
lost)

or

 Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)?

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections 
(Opera liturgica et poetica)

n  85278491  Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k 
Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei)

no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur 
Klassiker)

n  83731844  Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf Friml 
music & piano playing series)

no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections 
(Fehse)

no 00038058  Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen 
Publishing Ltd.)

no 99050925  Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.)

The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or 
manifestation title of the compilation.  Some of the examples are series 
authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of 
aggregate works.  For series we were already adding an additional qualifier to 
distinguish them.  Now we are doing it for all works.

The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the 
parenthetical qualifier.

Adam Schiff

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:

> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
> From: "Wilson, Pete" 
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> 
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
> 
> Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have 
> qualifiers like your "Best of X's poetry?"  I have been unable to turn any up 
> and am curious.  Thanks.
>
> Pete Wilson
> Vanderbilt University
>
> -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: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
>
> They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
> different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work 
> element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to 
> the conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing 
> to add, although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title 
> proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, 
> for example:
>
> X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)
>
> Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to 
> consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the 
> compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work 
> does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
> Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a 
> conventional collective title must be used instead.
>
> Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
> would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
> being added in subfield $f following a period:
>
> X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010
>
> Adam Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
>
> I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred 
> Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) 
> and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
> Works) - both in theory and in practice.
>
> If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
> "Selected poems / X"
> "Best of X's poetry"
> Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Robert Maxwell]

That's why RDA refers to such a compilation as one that "purports" to be the 
complete works of an author (including cases where such a compilation is 
published before the author's death). The cataloger is not expected to compare 
what is in hand against some reference work to make sure it is in fact 
complete. This seems practical to me.

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 Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one 
"complete works," in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a 
compiler about what "complete" means.  Does one include juvenilia, drafts, 
alternate versions, and other unpublished materials?  Then there are 
compilations made at different stages of an author's career, or works that are 
discovered after an earlier "complete works" is published.

I'm not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete 
works are in fact the same "Work" in the WEMI universe, but it does reinforce 
my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry.

Gary

Gary Hough
Head, Information Resources Management Dept.
W.E.B. Du Bois Library
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: (413) 545-6856
email: gho...@library.umass.edu<mailto:gho...@library.umass.edu>

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training 
materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind 
about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an 
author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an 
author can only write one "complete works"), and that variations are 
expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that 
different "selections" are different works.)

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 Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9




A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always 
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. 
The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but potentially 
also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be 
differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or 
subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around 
this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date 
qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I 
don't know if there is a consensus about this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing 
bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether 
constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate 
works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to 
do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best 
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). 
Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to 
see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would 
know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the 
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same 
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 
6 training materia

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Gary L Strawn]

There's also the possibility that the "complete works" can be published while 
the author is still alive; so they're "complete" (whatever that might mean) as 
of the time of publication, but there may be more in the future.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.   Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.   BatchCat version: 2007.25.428

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one 
"complete works," in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a 
compiler about what "complete" means.  Does one include juvenilia, drafts, 
alternate versions, and other unpublished materials?  Then there are 
compilations made at different stages of an author's career, or works that are 
discovered after an earlier "complete works" is published.

I'm not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete 
works are in fact the same "Work" in the WEMI universe, but it does reinforce 
my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry.

Gary

Gary Hough
Head, Information Resources Management Dept.
W.E.B. Du Bois Library
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: (413) 545-6856
email: gho...@library.umass.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training 
materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind 
about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an 
author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an 
author can only write one "complete works"), and that variations are 
expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that 
different "selections" are different works.)

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 Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9




A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always 
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. 
The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but potentially 
also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be 
differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or 
subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around 
this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date 
qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I 
don't know if there is a consensus about this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing 
bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether 
constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate 
works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to 
do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best 
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). 
Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to 
see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would 
know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the 
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same 
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 
6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different 
position.



--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031





On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff 
mailto:a

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Gary Hough]

While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one
“complete works,” in actual practice there are decisions to be made by a
compiler about what “complete” means.  Does one include juvenilia, drafts,
alternate versions, and other unpublished materials?  Then there are
compilations made at different stages of an author’s career, or works that
are discovered after an earlier “complete works” is published.

 

I’m not sure if this observation changes the concept that different complete
works are in fact the same “Work” in the WEMI universe, but it does
reinforce my sense that the WEMI distinctions can be a bit blurry.

 

Gary

 

Gary Hough
Head, Information Resources Management Dept.
W.E.B. Du Bois Library
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: (413) 545-6856
email: gho...@library.umass.edu 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

 

I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training
materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I’ve changed my
mind about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete
works of an author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work
(after all, an author can only write one “complete works”), and that
variations are expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6
position that different “selections” are different works.)

 

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 Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

 

 

 

A few comments on this very interesting thread.

 

In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this
ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but
potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that needs
to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation
and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to
get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works
we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another
subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about this. 

 

(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit
existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and
whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to
differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are
in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)

 

I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on
same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title,
it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no
ordinary user would know it by.

 

I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO
Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a
different position.

 

--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031  

 

 

 

On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff  wrote:

They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work
element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to
the conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing
to add, although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title
proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification,
for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to
consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the
compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work
does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly publishe

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[James Weinheimer]

On 17/12/2013 14.07, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and 
functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and 
that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete 
reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see 
happening very soon.


I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just 
a question of changing how the data is presented.


No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a 
sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users 
with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a 
title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X 
is displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among 
others):


...



I completely agree that a lot *could* be done. For instance, changing 
how the data is presented can be achieved without changing a single 
rule; all that needs to be done is change into a more modern format and 
play around. A lot already has been done with the new methods of 
indexing records that now allow facets, such as in Worldcat, as I 
continue to point out. That is not magic or witchcraft. It is XML (even 
MARCXML) with Lucene-type indexing and incredibly enough, it is 
available for free! Far more could be done using these tools.


But nobody is dancing in the streets. This has been such an incredible 
technological advance, and it seems that the cataloging world hasn't 
even noticed. Also, the public has definitely changed their searching 
behavior and their information "expectations" in lots of ways but it 
seems as if catalogers still believe that people browse for information 
in alphabetical order! I've actually had to argue the case. The 
collective uniform titles are a case in point. It was more important to 
change everything from "Selections" to "Works. Selections" as if that is 
going to help anybody at all! Of course, people can't find "Selections" 
now, but they can't find "Works" either


I have suggested all kinds of changes in how the data could be 
presented, and many others have too.


All of this explains why I think there needs a complete reconsideration 
*from the user's point of view* before anybody will begin to see any 
real differences.

--
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


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

James,



All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they 
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather 
mindless, the uniform title "Works" is now placed alphabetically under 
the author's name ("W") and as a consequence, people are supposed to 
*actively search* for "Works" (or browse to "W") although everybody, 
including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do 
that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it 
is also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time.


Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? 
That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under 
"Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Selections. English"? I think they do want 
that, but those groups of records are impossible for people to find in 
our current catalogs. Changing it to "Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* 
Selections. English" is certainly no improvement at all for the user 
and seems senseless.


I agree that in current catalogs, collective titles aren't much help. 
Maybe this was the reason that the principle of collective titles was 
almost completely abandoned in Germany, when we changed from our older 
cataloguing code (the so-called "Prussian instructions") to the modern 
German RAK rules.


But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and 
functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and 
that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete 
reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see 
happening very soon.


I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just a 
question of changing how the data is presented.


No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a 
sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users 
with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a 
title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X is 
displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among others):


- other editions of this work
- secondary literature about this work
- other works by the same author
- collections of works by the same author
- biographies of the author

Of course, these links should only be shown if there are appropriate 
records in the catalog.


The "collections of works by the same author" link would make use of the 
collection information. It wouldn't matter if this information was 
stored conventionally as collective titles or - as I suggested in my 
last mail - as additional work elements in the composite description.


Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

With respect to collective titles, it seems to me that there are two 
trends at present which are quite contrary to each other.


On the one hand, what we see is an increase of the use of collective 
titles, especially in LC's practice: Not only was the LCRI for AACR2 
25.10A abandonded (which said: no collective title if the title proper 
of the collection is "distinctive"). The rather extreme interpretation 
of the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10 is also a symptom of this 
tendency. The aim seems to be to reduce the exceptions to an absolute 
minimum, so that (almost) all collections get a collective title.


On the other hand, there are many people who are highly sceptical of 
collective titles, and therefore would prefer to get rid of them in as 
many cases as possible. In the German-speaking community, there even was 
a suggestion that *every* collection which has some sort of title proper 
(even something like "Collected prose") should be seen as being known by 
this title and therefore fall under the first sentence of 6.2.2.10. So, 
the only candidates for a collective title left would be cases where the 
source of information  lists only the titles of the works contained. 
These would, however, usually fall under 6.2.2.10.3, where the use of a 
collective title is not prescribed, but merely an alternative (the 
proponents of the "no collective titles" view of course prefer the basic 
rule here, i.e. giving the titles of all works contained).


These two tendencies perhaps reflect two different aims:
#1: to collocate all collections of the same type
#2: to collocate all manifestations of a certain collection

The first aim can be reached by collective titles, but only if these are 
used consistently and comprehensively. Therefore, every exception is 
problematic. To get a perfect result, even something like "Leaves of 
grass" should get a collective title.


The second aim would be best reached if collections were treated just 
like other works (i.e. if the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 would apply to 
them all). Then, the "real" title of the work could be used to collocate 
the manifestations. For example, a German edition of Roald Dahl's "Kiss 
kiss" with the title proper "Kuesschen, Kuesschen" should get "Kiss 
kiss" as the title of the work, and not "Short stories. Selection".


In my opinion, both these aims are perfectly valid ones, and ideally, 
RDA should cater for them both. One possibility I can think of is using 
the "real" title of the work as an additional attribute in the AAP, e.g.:


Dahl, Roald, 1919-1960. Short stories. Selections (Kiss kiss)

Note that the distinguishing attribute really needs to be the title of 
the work and not the title of the manifestation (as seems to be common 
PCC practice now). If the title of the manifestation was used, the AAP 
for a German translation would not be the same as for the English version:


Dahl, Roald, 1919-1960. Short stories. Selections (Kuesschen, Kuesschen)

So, the two manifestations wouldn't collocate.

I can also think of a more radical solution along the lines Bernhard has 
already suggested: Use the "real" title of the collection as the title 
of the work in RDA element 6.2, and give information about its 
collective character in some other element, as an attribute of the work. 
Actually, these elements are already there: We could use 7.2 "Nature of 
the Content" to record something like "Collection of works" or 
"Collection of novels", and 7.3 "Coverage of the Content" to record 
something like "complete" or "selected".


Heidrun



Bernhard Eversberg wrote:


There can be no excuse for not recording a title in the title element.
This is what even MARC is in fact doing. All that's needed for
collections, and this is from long-time experience outside MARCistan
again, is not a made-up uniform title but an indicator or flag saying
the thing is a collection. This is language-independent.
Presentation software again can turn that into "Collection" or
"Sammlung" or whatever the context requires, placed conveniently
where it doesn't irritate but still add to the information displayed.





--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[James Weinheimer]

On 16/12/2013 21.09, Kevin M Randall wrote:


Adam Schiff wrote:

LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work
does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a
conventional collective title must be used instead.

What I would really like to see is some kind of justification for this idea.  
Is there any evidence that catalog users or the general public do NOT know the 
the title of a compilation by the title that appears on its title page?

Can anyone tell me--with a straight face--that the book "Everything is nice : collected 
stories, sketches and plays" is not known to anyone by that title, but rather is known by the 
title "Works. Selections. 2012"???



Of course, our predecessors understood--probably better then we do--that 
nobody will ever search for "Works" or "Selections". That was not the 
purpose of collective uniform titles. It turns out that this is an 
example of how the transfer from card/print catalogs to online catalogs 
changed something very fundamental in the workings of the catalog. It is 
clearest to show this through an example.


If we examine the "Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum" 
(that is, Panizzi's catalog where only volume 1 came out and because of 
popular outrage, it was stopped and the Royal Investigation began) the 
purpose of these "collective titles" (which didn't really "exist" as 
they do today) was used for *arrangement*, and there was no need for 
anybody to search for them because once you found a person's name, the 
first things you saw were the "Works" and "Selections" etc. As a result, 
when you found the person, you found their works (if there were any).


To see how it worked, we can use the wonders of Google Books to look in 
Panizzi's catalog under Aristophanes: 
http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJ&hl=it&pg=PA317#v=onepage&q&f=false 
and we immediately see "Works" (didn't have to search for it) and after 
browsing we eventually come to "Separate Works".


If we look under the more complex arrangement under Aristotle 
http://books.google.it/books?id=cE0MAQAAMAAJ&hl=it&pg=PA321#v=onepage&q&f=false, 
we see "Works" and eventually (much farther along) we come to "Two or 
More Separate Works" (or our "Selections"). This reveals an *incredibly 
complex* arrangement, with see references everywhere to other places in 
the catalog, and we can begin to understand the outrage among the people 
who saw this catalog and why they demanded an investigation.


These arrangements were transferred wholesale into the card catalog. 
This can be seen in the Princeton scanned catalog, where we find the 
following arrangement for Aristotle: 
http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/1371.50&r=1.00. 
Even more complex is Cicero 
http://imagecat1.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ECC/srchguides/sub/5280.50&r=1.00. 
Complete works and selected works were often interfiled. With the card 
catalog, at least some very nice notes were possible.


All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they 
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather 
mindless, the uniform title "Works" is now placed alphabetically under 
the author's name ("W") and as a consequence, people are supposed to 
*actively search* for "Works" (or browse to "W") although everybody, 
including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do 
that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it is 
also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time.


Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? 
That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under "Cicero, 
Marcus Tullius. Selections. English"? I think they do want that, but 
those groups of records are impossible for people to find in our current 
catalogs. Changing it to "Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* Selections. 
English" is certainly no improvement at all for the user and seems 
senseless.


But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and 
functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that 
people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration 
from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon.


--
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


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Bernhard Eversberg]

16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage:


We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation
and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output.  The
punctuation could even differ in different contexts.  (We can dream,
can't we?)


This dream has long since been reality in non-MARC systems. In MARC, it
is nothing but an anachronistic leftover from card production, the
original primary task fulfilled by MARC.
The current movement away from MARC, as LC has finally initiated it,
needs to clearly separate field content from labeling and punctuation.
However, MARC without labeling and punctuation is very well possible
since presentation software can supply all of it, as systems outside
MARCistan, and even MARC-based systems, have proven over and again.


I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work,
is best identified by the title it is published with (or rather an
AAP based on same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become
known by that title, it's hard to see that the solution is to
catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would know it by.


There can be no excuse for not recording a title in the title element.
This is what even MARC is in fact doing. All that's needed for
collections, and this is from long-time experience outside MARCistan
again, is not a made-up uniform title but an indicator or flag saying
the thing is a collection. This is language-independent.
Presentation software again can turn that into "Collection" or
"Sammlung" or whatever the context requires, placed conveniently
where it doesn't irritate but still add to the information displayed.
More distinctive collection type information can be left to subject
indexing which, intentionally, is to become an integral part of RDA
anyway.




B.Eversberg

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Adam L. Schiff]

no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections 
(Opera liturgica et poetica)

n  85278491  Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k 
Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei)

no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Works. $k Selections (Knaur 
Klassiker)

n  83731844  Friml, Rudolf, $d 1879-1972. $t Works. $k Selections (Rudolf Friml 
music & piano playing series)

no2012109956 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d 1831-1910. $t Correspondence. $k Selections 
(Fehse)

no 00038058  Coward, Noel, $d 1899-1973. $t Works. $k Selections (Methuen 
Publishing Ltd.)

no 99050925  Foote, Horton. $t Plays. $k Selections (Newbury, Vt.)

The final three illustrate other choices for the qualifier besides date or 
manifestation title of the compilation.  Some of the examples are series 
authority records, but the principle is the same as for other types of 
aggregate works.  For series we were already adding an additional qualifier to 
distinguish them.  Now we are doing it for all works.

The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the 
parenthetical qualifier.

Adam Schiff

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
From: "Wilson, Pete" 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers like your 
"Best of X's poetry?"  I have been unable to turn any up and am curious.  
Thanks.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element 
(date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the 
conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, 
although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of 
the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider 
the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation 
is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become 
known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a 
conventional collective title must be used instead.

Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
being added in subfield $f following a period:

X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message-
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred 
Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and  
6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according 
to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
X. Poems. Selections (1995)
X. Poems. Selections (2010)

In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry 
collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the 
AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be 
necessary in the AAP).

I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates 
(at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this 
practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes 
between different collections of the same type. What do others do?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following addr

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Wilson, Pete]

Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers 
like your "Best of X's poetry?"  I have been unable to turn any up and am 
curious.  Thanks.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-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: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element 
(date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the 
conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, 
although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of 
the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider 
the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation 
is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become 
known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. 
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a 
conventional collective title must be used instead.

Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
being added in subfield $f following a period:

X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message-
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred 
Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and  
6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according 
to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
X. Poems. Selections (1995)
X. Poems. Selections (2010)

In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry 
collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the 
AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be 
necessary in the AAP).

I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates 
(at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this 
practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes 
between different collections of the same type. What do others do?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L 

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kevin said:


>Can anyone tell me--with a straight face--that the book "Everything
>is nice : collected stories, sketches and plays" is not known to
>anyone by that title, but rather is known by the title "Works.
>Selections. 2012"???

Our clients agree with you.  Most want nothering between 100 and 245
distinctive title as it appears on the publication.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Robert Maxwell]

I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training 
materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind 
about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an 
author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an 
author can only write one "complete works"), and that variations are 
expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that 
different "selections" are different works.)

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 Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9




A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always 
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. 
The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but potentially 
also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be 
differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or 
subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around 
this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date 
qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I 
don't know if there is a consensus about this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing 
bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether 
constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate 
works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to 
do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best 
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). 
Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to 
see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would 
know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the 
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same 
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 
6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different 
position.



--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031





On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element 
(date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the 
conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, 
although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of 
the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider 
the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation 
is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become 
known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of 
Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective 
title must be used instead.

Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
being added in subfield $f following a period:

X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[John Hostage]

We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation and let the 
punctuation be generated as necessary on output.  The punctuation could even 
differ in different contexts.  (We can dream, can't we?)

As an example, in the "real world," when dates are given with a person's name, 
they are usually in parentheses.  We in libraryland insist on hardwiring them 
with a comma.

--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu<mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 17:27
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9




A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always 
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. 
The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but potentially 
also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be 
differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or 
subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around 
this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date 
qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I 
don't know if there is a consensus about this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing 
bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether 
constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate 
works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to 
do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best 
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). 
Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to 
see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would 
know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the 
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same 
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 
6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different 
position.



--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031





On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element 
(date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the 
conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, 
although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of 
the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider 
the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation 
is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become 
known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of 
Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective 
title must be used instead.

Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
being added in subfield $f following a period:

X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute
according to 6

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Chew Chiat Naun]

A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this
ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles,
but potentially also any work or expression authorized access point that
needs to be differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for
punctuation and/or subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC
subfields, to get around this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed
that for works we give date qualifiers in parentheses without separating
them into another subfield. But I don't know if there is a consensus about
this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit
existing bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and
whether constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to
differentiate works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we
are in fact going to do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on
same). Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title,
it's hard to see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no
ordinary user would know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO
Module 6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a
different position.



--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031






On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff  wrote:

> They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have
> different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work
> element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to
> the conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing
> to add, although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title
> proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in
> identification, for example:
>
> X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)
>
> Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to
> consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which
> the compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled
> work does not become known by its title except through the passage of time
> (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled
> works, a conventional collective title must be used instead.
>
> Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the
> date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC
> these are being added in subfield $f following a period:
>
> X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010
>
> Adam Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> -Original Message- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
>
> I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
> Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
> Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
> Works) - both in theory and in practice.
>
> If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
> "Selected poems / X"
> "Best of X's poetry"
> Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.
>
> But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute
> according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
> X. Poems. Selections (1995)
> X. Poems. Selections (2010)
>
> In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry
> collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in
> the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute
> would be necessary in the AAP).
>
> I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add
> dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but
> that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never
> distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do
> others do?
>
> Heidrun
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
> To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
> address you are subscribed under to:
> lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> In the body of the message:
> SIGNOFF RDA-L
> To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
> ad

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Kevin M Randall]

Adam Schiff wrote:

> LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work
> does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
> Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a
> conventional collective title must be used instead.

What I would really like to see is some kind of justification for this idea.  
Is there any evidence that catalog users or the general public do NOT know the 
the title of a compilation by the title that appears on its title page?

Can anyone tell me--with a straight face--that the book "Everything is nice : 
collected stories, sketches and plays" is not known to anyone by that title, 
but rather is known by the title "Works. Selections. 2012"???

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun posted:

>I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the 
>Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or 
>Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing 
>Works) - both in theory and in practice.

Can't comment on the theory, but in practice, our small library
clients do not wish uniform titles apart from the Bible, Shakespeare
and classical music.  Most of the same title in two languages
(English/French) are simultaneous publications, so using either as a
240 for the other would be politically difficult.  As stated earlier,
we use:

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]


We follow the RDA option to always assign a collective title when
lacking, never string part titles in 245.  Part titles (with authors
if different) are in 505 and 7XX.  We should avoid assigning the same
collective title to two collections by the same author I suppose.
  
We don't bother with the work/expression distinction, since it does
not exist in either MARC or Bibframe, so don't see it affecting us
during my lifetime.

In the past we have not been concerned if a 245 after 1XX is not
distinctive.  Of course there are often manifestations of the same work
with the same 100/245,  I've never seen a discussion of the same
100/245 for different works, e.g., Joe, Blow.  Selected poems,  As
with those 130 "(Motion picture)" video uniform titles, there are
other differences in the record as a whole.  This distinction is not
something easily done to legacy records, so I see no point in
beginning now.

Don't suppose this help, apart from pointing out that some
distinctions we make are irrelevant to most patrons.



   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Adam Schiff]

They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work 
element (date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to 
the conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing 
to add, although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title 
proper of the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, 
for example:


X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to 
consider the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the 
compilation is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work 
does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. 
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a 
conventional collective title must be used instead.


Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the 
date would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC 
these are being added in subfield $f following a period:


X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-Original Message- 
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller

Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute
according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
X. Poems. Selections (1995)
X. Poems. Selections (2010)

In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry
collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in
the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute
would be necessary in the AAP).

I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add
dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but
that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never
distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do
others do?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:

lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L 


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[Robert Maxwell]

It seems clear to me that collections containing different *selections* of an 
author's works are different (aggregate) works. These are differentiated at the 
work level.

I think, however, that different collections purporting to contain an author's 
*complete* works (or complete works in a particular form such as "plays") are 
the same aggregate work. If differentiation is needed between different 
collections, I think this probably should happen at the expression level.

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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 1:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred 
Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and  
6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according 
to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
X. Poems. Selections (1995)
X. Poems. Selections (2010)

In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry 
collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the 
AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be 
necessary in the AAP).

I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates 
(at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this 
practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes 
between different collections of the same type. What do others do?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L