John and PoCo members,

Diane Boehr makes an important point here when she brings up the topic of hybrid heading strings. This is particularly crucial regarding work and expression records.

AACR2 uniform title headings were not designed with FRBR in mind and so unsurprisingly do not conform to the FRBR entity model followed by RDA. For example, the heading string

Homer. Iliad

represents in AACR2 not just the work "Iliad" but also all the Greek-language expressions of the Iliad (and there are many).

Homer. Iliad. English

represents in AACR2 not just "the" English-language expression of the Iliad, but *all* of the English-language expressions of the Iliad (and there are many).

RDA does not admit authorized access points that represent more than one expression. They must be distinguished from one another. In the case of the Iliad,

Homer. Iliad

would stand for the work in RDA, but because this work has been realized in more than one expression, the same access point cannot stand for expressions of the work. It must be qualified in some way so that each expression is distinctly identified. See RDA 6.9-12 and 6.27.3. So the various Greek expressions would be given access points such as these:

Homer. Iliad. Greek (West) [for the recent Teubner edition by Martin L. West]

Homer. Iliad. Greek (Leaf) [for the school edition by Walter Leaf]

Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf and Hentze) [for the earlier Teubner edition edited by Dindorf and corrected by Hentze]

Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf) [for Dindorf's uncorrected edition]

Because there are more than one English translation, there are more than one expression, and so "Homer. Iliad. English" can't be used without a qualifier in RDA; for example:

Homer. Iliad. English (Rieu) [the translation by E.V. Rieu]

Homer. Iliad. English (Chapman) [the translation by George Chapman]

Homer. Iliad. English (Lang, Leaf and Myers) [the translation by Andrew Lang, Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers]

So there's a fundamental (and I think irreconcilable) difference between how AACR2 and RDA treat access points for works and expressions. In many, perhaps most, cases the established AACR2 uniform title heading (if any) can't be used in an RDA record; and AACR2 authority records for uniform titles can't very well be used to represent RDA authorized access points because there isn't a one-to-one correspondence (the AACR2 authority record for "Homer. Iliad" stands for both the work and the Greek expressions; RDA needs distinct records for each of these).

So, OK, in the case of Homer, we could follow the new PCC post-test policy: the name piece of the string "Homer" is to be used as established in AACR2, the "title" portion follows RDA. This is fine because "Homer" legitimately could be used in RDA for this person. We could create authority records for any of the expression access points above and legitimately code them "rda". 

But there are a good number of AACR2 name heading forms that cannot be used in RDA. For example, the form for the author Alcinous, as established in the authority file using AACR2, is

Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent.

By the RDA guidelines this heading cannot be used as is in RDA. It must be modified to

Alcinous, active 2nd century

This person wrote a work "Didaskalikos", which exists in more than one expression. In RDA we need at least the following access points:

Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. French (Louis)
Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)

Following the announced PCC policy, we would instead use, and create new authority records for:

Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. French (Louis)
Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)

These strings are neither correct for AACR2 nor are they correct for RDA. Would this authority record be coded AACR2 or RDA? And there is no way to notify the system or other catalogers when as here the authority record contains a hybrid string in 1XX. I see this as a major problem with the newly announced policy.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2)

John,

If you are using an AACR2 authority record as a building block for a new RDA heading, how would the resulting authority record be coded: AACR2 or RDA?  If in your second example, the new subordinate entity was not Tobacco Advisory Group, but the Department of Tobacco Advice, would a library doing RDA cataloging establish a hybrid heading ($a=AACR2 and $b=RDA)?

AACR2 authority record

110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London
710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England)

New heading needed for cataloging

110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Department of Tobacco Advice 
710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b Department of Tobacco Advice

OR

110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Dept of Tobacco Advice 
710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b Department of Tobacco Advice


Also, what about guidance for those of us who are continuing to catalog in AACR2, but may encounter RDA authority records.  I assume the PCC still wants us to use the form of name in the 1XX field in our bibliographic record.  Are we expected to add 7XXs for the AACR2 form of the name?  And what happens if you need to use an RDA authority record as a building block for a new AACR2 heading?  How would that resulting authority record get coded?


Diane Boehr
Head of Cataloging
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike, Room 1N11
Bethesda, MD 20894
301-435-7059
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Riemer, John [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 1:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2)

Bob, 
   
The 1XX forms from existing AACR2 authority records are to be used in bibliographic records.  This is true even when the AACR2 form represents a "building block" in a new heading being formulated.  RDA forms may be added to 7XX fields in the authority records, particularly when the heading form would be different.  Examples:


AACR2 authority record

100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev.
700 14 $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman)

New heading needed for cataloging

100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev. $t Poems
700 14 $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman). $t Poems


AACR2 authority record

110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London
710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England)

New heading needed for cataloging

110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Tobacco Advisory Group
710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b Tobacco Advisory Group


The Policy Committee has also slightly revised the final portion of Decision 2:

2. After the test period ends in Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue to use the RDA testing guidelines from Jan. 2 until further notice, with the exception that already-established AACR2 heading forms should be used in bibliographic records. This decision will be reevaluated at the time an implementation decision is made.

   John

John Riemer
Head, UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
Kinross South
11020 Kinross Avenue
Box 957230
(campus mail code 723011)
Los Angeles, CA  90095-7230
+1 310.825.2901 voice
+1 310.794.9357 fax
[log in to unmask] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes

Decision 2 needs a bit of clarification, perhaps:

"2. After the test period ends in Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue to use the RDA testing guidelines from Jan. 2 until further notice, with the exception that already-established AACR2 heading forms should be used in bibliographic records. This decision will be reevaluated in April 2011."

A. I assume this means we will continue to add 7XX fields to the authority records for the RDA form, which may differ from the AACR2 form in the 1XX field, but we will use the 1XX form in the bib record.

B. What about brand new RDA authority records related to existing AACR2 authority forms? Presumably we are to use the RDA form in the 1XX of those records (and in the RDA bib record), but what if that form differs from the AACR2 form on the related authority record? E.g. (example from the "testing guidelines"):

AACR2 authority record

100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev.
700 14 $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman)

New RDA authority record

100 1_ $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman). $t Poems

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Les Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Policy Committee meeting outcomes

PCC Colleagues,

The PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) met November 4-5, 2010 for its annual
meeting. Decisions and action items from the meeting are available and
posted on the PCC web site: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-Actions.html  

Les Hawkins
CONSER Coordinator
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]