LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  June 2013

PCCLIST June 2013

Subject:

Re: Distinction between the work and original expression (was: NARs with ampersand in subfield $l - do not reuse LCCN)

From:

"Scharff, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Jun 2013 15:00:17 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

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]

-----Original Message-----
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)

Hi Adam,

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 6.27.1.9-- 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.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
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

Ana,

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 6.27.1.9 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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 31 May 2013, Cristan, Ana Lupe wrote:

> Hello,
> 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: 
> http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/lcnaf_rdaphase.pdf
>
>
> 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.
> Thanks,
> 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]>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager