Interesting discussion. Is it too soon to speculate on whether or not it would be possible to code field 377 in work authority records? I *think* I understand that "Language of Work" is not an RDA attribute; but if there is some sort of tacit understanding that a work authority record for a work with a textual component also represents the original expression, encoding the 377 for the original language would seem reasonable. BTW, I was on the Expressions task group that Dave mentions, so I know how thorny all this is.
Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
Gaylord Music Library
Washington University in St. Louis
[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reser, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 1:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Distinction between the work and original expression (was: NARs with ampersand in subfield $l - do not reuse LCCN)
As you noted, LC does not routinely make an additional NAR representing the original language expression-- this has been the long-time practice in the NACO file for general works, where the authority record for the work also represents the original expression. For example, the access point "Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet" represents Hamlet the work, as well as the original (English) expression, and there is no authority record for "Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. English."
You are correct that the "Mail carrier = El cartero" example in the LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 illustrates this approach (an earlier version included "$l English" in the first analytic added entry, but this was removed after concerns were raised by the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group about using different access points for the original work and original expression in some cases). Comments on the final report of the PCC Access Points for Expressions Task Group also raised this issue, and follow-up activities on that report have been deferred by the PCC Policy Committee to the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, which is planning a possible questionnaire to get the sense of the PCC. The LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 is labeled as LC practice because there has been no resolution at this point (there is a note in the PS that indicates the PCC has the topic under discussion). [You also mentioned Appendix 1 to LC-PCC PS for 18.104.22.168-- I wouldn't read too much 'RDA policy' into that statement considering the first cautionary sentence "Note: This appendix is provisional until the Program for Cooperative Cataloging has reviewed and revised it for RDA."] The guidelines for when LC would make a title or name/title authority record are in DCM Z1 (we generally wouldn't make an authority record for the original expression in cases like this); great flexibility is extended to PCC folks there as well-- "PCC practice: NACO participants may contribute name authority records for works or expressions as needed for cataloging."
This is a complicated issue given the impact on the legacy authority file as well as bibliographic issues-- what one might do in a 'perfect' RDA environment without this legacy would likely be different. You may know that some (at least 1) PCC library has already started moving in this direction and feels very strongly about this, so I can't advise you on what is right or wrong at this point, but will say that for now LC will wait until the issue is further discussed by the PCC, potential solutions identified, and a plan for file maintenance is in place before changing its practice.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NARs with ampersand in subfield $l - do not reuse LCCN
Will a $l with the original language of expression be included in the new NAR, or are we to just create an NAR for the work and let that represent the original expression? LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 seems to indicate the latter should be done (but it's not clearly labeled either as LC practice, PCC practice, or both), and it doesn't actually deal with NARs, just access points in bibliographic records. But the clear implication of the example there is that we don't create a separate expression NAR for the original language expression:
100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953-
245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
700 12 $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.
700 12 $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.
Also, Appendix 1 to LC-PCC PS for 22.214.171.124 has conflicting examples, since the second example below does include the language of the original expression in the access point:
730 02 $a To live and die in L.A.
730 02 $a To live and die in L.A. $l French.
730 02 $a To live and die in L.A. $l Spanish.
Original in English, dubbed in French and Spanish
730 02 $a Shichinin no samurai. $l English
730 02 $a Shichinin no samurai. $l Japanese.
Subtitled version of a motion picture released under a different title
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Fri, 31 May 2013, Cristan, Ana Lupe wrote:
> Earlier there was a discussion on the RDA-list about NAR n 79084797 that was changed incorrectly. I responded to that list but in reality this is the audience I need to address. This is to remind catalogers not to reuse LCCNs and how to untangle NARs with subfield $l that contain an ampersand.
> In July of 2012 PSD issued guidelines describing the changes made in
> Phase 1 and provided guidance for the handling of NARs that had the
> 667 note added to it. This document is at:
> See page 4, number 3 that states:
> "...AACR2 authority record with an ampersand in $l will be labeled with a 667 field as needing review under RDA (about 13,000 authority records).
> What an RDA cataloger should do: If an authority record with an ampersand in $l is encountered, create substitute RDA records for each language expression represented in $l if they don't already exist (they often will) and report the authority record with the ampersand for deletion. Do not use 're-use' the authority record with an ampersand for a single language expression...."
> In October of 2012 - Dave Reser created a PowerPoint with more detail and this was added to the suite of documents in the table of Library of Congress RDA Training Materials - labeled Special topics. This PowerPoint called Changes to the LC/NACO Authority File<http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/Authorities%20Presentations/RDA%20special%20topic_changes%20to%20lc-naco%20file.ppt> also describes the changes made to the LC/NAF as a result of Phase 1 and provides guidance as to what to do in each situation when a NAR with a 667 note is encountered (specifically ppt slides 19 and 20 talk about uniform title NARs with either polyglot or with the ampersand).
> Please take the time to review these documents. I will delete n 79084797 and create a new NAR for the English expression and will add the deprecated LCCN in a subfield $z.
> Ana Lupe Crist?n
> Library of Congress
> Policy and Standards Division
> 101 Independence Ave.
> Washington, DC 20540-4305
> Tel. +1.202.707.7921
> fax +1.202.707.6629
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>