HI Stephen,

I wish what you describe in your first paragraph below were the case, but it is not. LC's PowerPoint about compilations on the RDA Training Special Topics page has this instruction:

"For resources being cataloged for the first time, because this is the first publication of that compilation, do not consider the question of "commonly known" and add a 240 with a conventional collective title."

Since "Stag's leap" has only been published once, it would get "Poems. Selections" as its preferred title under this interpretation of RDA. Only long established works, such as "Leaves of grass," would get to have the title their creators intended as their preferred titles.  It doesn't matter if "Stag's leap" is published later in 20 different manifestations, the decision about its preferred title has already been made.

Also search OCLC with "dx:rda and ut:poems selections" to see the hundreds of unique works that have been given this generic preferred title.


Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database Management & NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services Department
[log in to unmask] | (858) 822-3138




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Applying collective titles to works of poetry, etc.

Doesn't 6.2.2.10 distinguish between compilations (loosely defined) that are works with their own known titles and compilations that are works but lack such a title? In that case, Olds' "Stag's leap" would fall under 6.2.2.4 and should not present the problem which Ryan describes. The problem I see is deciding which compilations would need to be treated under 6.2.2.10.

An editor assembles all the Shakespeare passages which mention bees or honey and publishes them under the title "To bee or not to bee" to modest success. The title appears on the resource embodying the work, will undoubtedly be known to those who know it, and will be cited as such in the writings of bee enthusiasts. The compilation may not be one Shakespeare intended, but it is certainly not random. It passes the test at 6.2.2.10.  Should it be entered under "Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. To bee or not to bee"?

Ay, there's the rub. The real world notion of works distinguishes more sharply between canonical and non-canonical work titles than the RDA definition.  The problem is less about the compilation's title and more about its standing as a recognized "work" of a particular author.
 Maybe what PCC could propose is an LC-PCC-PS which would clarify that "in reference sources" refers to reference sources that discuss or enumerate the "works" of an author and not simply any external source that refers to the title in hand.

I mostly agree with Bob Maxwell's point about differentiating authorized access points, but would hate to see the collocation value of collective titles get lost in the process. Either we'd want systems that could provide both a list of the differentiated authorized access points Bob describes and a list of titles proper under truncated forms of those access points, e.g., so that I could sort the set of "Shakespeare... Poems. Selections"  by date; or we'd want to allow authorized access points for higher levels of abstraction, e.g., "Shakespeare... Poems. Selections," recognizing that they represent an abstract level of collocation on which more precise authorized access points can be built by extending the number of qualifiers.  In the latter case, libraries could decide what level of differentiation would best suit their users and collection.

What doesn't work is trying to establish an authorized access point at the more abstract level but having its authority specify a discrete list of titles.  In too many cases that list of titles will be incomplete and ultimately misleading.  I fully agree with Bob's implied point that a 400 reference for "Shakespeare ... To bee or not to bee" should refer specifically to an authorized access point for that compilation, and not to "Shakespeare ... Works. Selections, 2013," since my collection may need the latter access point but lack the former title, and include a title not found in its 400s.

Stephen

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am completely sympathetic to what you're saying, Ryan. I want to 
> point one thing out, however. We shouldn't be creating 
> undifferentiated work access points. Leaving aside the issue of the 
> title of author-originated compilations such as Stag's leap-I agree, 
> that's the commonly known name for this aggregate work and should 
> therefore be the preferred title-let's suppose we have some examples 
> of the "after the fact" compilations by someone other than the author 
> (e.g. "Selected poems of Shakespeare"). The conventional collective 
> title for these would be "Poems. Selections"-at least, that is how the 
> preferred title would begin. But RDA tells us to add things if the 
> title of a work is the same as the title of another work by the same 
> creator. This is brought out in the core statements at 6.3 (form of 
> work), 6.4 (date of work), 6.5 (place of origin of the work), and 6.6 
> (other distinguishing characteristic of the work), together with 6.27.1.9 (additions to access points representing works).
>
>
>
> Now a collection of poems by a particular author is a work in and of 
> itself, an aggregate work, but a work nonetheless. RDA 5.1.2 makes 
> this clear - "the terms work and expression should be read . to 
> include . aggregates of such entities." This is true whether the 
> collection was put together by the author or by somebody else. It 
> follows, then, that a different collection of poems by that author is 
> a different aggregate work. If both collections are of the "after the 
> fact, not collected or planned by the author" type, we would use the 
> conventional collective title "Poems. Selections" as the preferred 
> access point. But that title is not enough-in our hypothetical situation we have at least two works with the same title "Poems. Selections"
> and so the core statements with 6.27.1.9 kick in and we should be 
> adding one of the four differentiating elements, whichever makes most 
> sense (or in RDA's language "as appropriate"). For instance, if a 
> collection is well known by the name of its editor, we'd add that, possibly:
>
>
>
> [Poet's authorized access point]. Poems. Selections (surname of editor 
> A)
>
> [Poet's authorized access point]. Poems. Selections (surname of editor 
> B)
>
>
>
> Alternately, if it makes more sense, we could add form, or date, or 
> place of origin, or something else.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to bring this up to help people to think this through.
> Different collections (aggregate works) are different works but if 
> their preferred title is a conventional collective title then they 
> share the same title and the title needs something added to it to 
> differentiate between those works.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> "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: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Finnerty, Ryan
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Applying collective titles to works of poetry, etc.
>
>
>
> Hello PCC List,
>
>
>
> We here at UC San Diego are gearing up to begin RDA for bibliographic 
> records in early March so we've been going through the LC training 
> materials with our staff. The refresher training for compilations 
> (available at 
> http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html), plus the 
> RDA records coming into our catalog, have us concerned. We hope to open a dialogue here and see what other people think. We welcome your thoughts!
>
>
>
> Ryan Finnerty
>
> For the UCSD RDA Planning and Implementation Group
>
>
>
> **************
>
>
>
>
>
> We are concerned about LC's interpretation and application of RDA 
> 6.2.2.10 to books of poetry, short stories, essays, etc., in that they 
> use a conventional collective title with Selections as the preferred 
> title for the work. Note: For the rest of this message, we will use 
> poetry as an example, but the same applies to essays, short stories, etc.
>
>
>
> The instruction reads, "If a compilation of works is known by a title 
> that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference 
> sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4-6.2.2.5. For other 
> compilations, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3, as applicable."
>
>
>
> So in order to apply a conventional collective title you have to 
> believe that an original book of poetry is both: 1) A compilation,  
> and; 2) Not known by its own title. We believe that neither condition applies.
>
>
>
> In regards to the first point, we are not talking about books of 
> poetry whose contents are mash-ups of poems previously published in 
> disparate editions. These type of resources are compilations and 
> should get a conventional collective title.
>
>
>
> We are talking about books of poetry, often issued for the first time, 
> whose contents are intended by their creators to exist together as one 
> work. Many books of poetry are thematically intertwined and are meant 
> to be experienced as a collective whole by the reader. And while yes, 
> any one poem can be extracted and exist on its own, the same can be 
> said for chapters from a novel.
>
>
>
> For example, take this work by Loren Erdich "I take back the sponge cake."
> Based on the Amazon blurb, this cannot be considered a mere 
> compilation of poems, but a poetic work intended to exist as a whole:
>
>
>
> I Take Back the Sponge Cake is a choose-your-own-adventure 
> collaboration between poet Sierra Nelson and visual artist Loren 
> Erdrich. Each turn of the page features an ink and watercolor drawing, 
> a poem, and a choice between two sound-alike words that create a 
> variety of paths through the book. The adventure always begins in the 
> same place, but depending on your choices your reading experience 
> moves by emotional meander--leaping, looping, and surprising until it finally reaches one of the possible endings.
>
>
>
>
>
> Or Sharon Olds latest work, "Stag's leap" a poetic work that tells a 
> continuing story from start to finish of her husband leaving her to 
> her finding new freedom. You can isolate a single poem  and consider 
> it a work, but it's the larger work that tells the story or creates 
> the mood that the author intended.
>
>
>
> For the second point, how could the two above works not be known by 
> their own titles? Anyone looking for these no matter what the context 
> (in a bookstore, online marketplace, library, etc.) would be looking 
> for them with the title the author gave them.
>
>
>
> In a list of titles under an author, how could a bunch of entries such 
> as "Poems. Selections" be considered helpful? Users would have to go 
> through every record with the collective title to find what they want 
> rather than just selecting the one desired title from the list in the 
> first place. This seems to place the convenience of the cataloger 
> above the convenience of the user.
>
>
>
> We see the following practical problems with this practice:
>
>
>
> 1) When it comes to authority work, we are, in essence, creating 
> undifferentiated work level authority records. One of the major 
> objectives of moving to RDA is to lay the groundwork for linked data. 
> According to LC's own RDA training slides showing the WEMI 
> relationships, a work is linked to an expression, is linked to a 
> manifestation, is linked to an item. If a work record represents more 
> than one work, it introduces chaos into this linked model. See 
> n2012075841 and no98041871 as examples (the latter even conflates two 
> authors on the same authority record-very confusing when putting more than one work in a record).
>
>
>
> 2) What do we do when a work becomes famous at a later point and its 
> title now meets this nebulous notion of being "known"? Do we go back 
> and scrub the collective title off the records and revise and/or cancel authority records?
> I imagine LC and others have no plans to do this, but for current 
> works that will someday enter the canon, this poses a big problem.
>
>
>
> 3) How do we represent the work in subject access for works of 
> secondary literature? Will we have the following subject field for a 
> work of criticism written expressly about "I take back the sponge cake":
>
>
>
> 600 10 Erdich Loren. $t Poems. $k Selections $x Criticism and 
> interpretation
>
>
>
> We very much understand LC/PCC's desire to leave behind LCRI 25.10. We 
> want to leave it behind as well. A lot of people never understood this 
> rule, and those that did had differing ideas of adequate and 
> distinctive.  We simply propose that for works of poetry (etc.) you 
> give the preferred title as instructed in 6.2.2.4-6.2.2.5 unless it is 
> evident from what you have in hand that is consists of a combination 
> of different poems from previously published works, or a combination 
> of old and new. For example, Barry Wallenstein has a work entitled 
> "Drastic dislocations : new and selected poems." Giving a collective title here would be appropriate and expected.
> However, we would make a distinct and differentiated authority record 
> for this work with proper additions to the authorized access point so 
> if anyone comes to the catalog searching for "Drastic dislocations" 
> they would be referred directly to the correct record. And 
> additionally, if a new work by one author came in called simply "20 
> poems" and there was no evidence this was a combination of poems 
> previously appearing elsewhere, then let "20 poems" be its preferred title.
>
>
>
> At UC San Diego, this is not just a philosophical issue. We collect 
> extensively in modern poetry and these conventional collective titles 
> are already causing confusion in our catalog. Our literature librarian 
> has noticed them and is asking us to remove them from the records. 
> Since we want to (and currently do) accept PCC records as they are 
> without review, we would love to see this practice changed.
>
>



--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428