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: alternative titles and work access points

From:

"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:49:11 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (173 lines)

In preparing for an upcoming presentation and going through the RDA 
instructions on preferred title, I was thinking about the instructions in 
various places (6.2.2.4, 6.2.2.6) that say: "Do not include an alternative 
title as part of the preferred title."  This tells me that the work will 
be named without the alternative title.  Since RDA requires naming the 
work, are catalogers now routinely including a 240 field in records with 
the preferred title?  This would certainly be a change in practice from 
AACR2.

AACR2:

100 1_ Gracyk, Theodore.

245 10 Listening to popular music, or, How I learned to stop worrying and
        love Led Zeppelin / $c Theodore Gracyk.

246 30 Listening to popular music

246 30 How I learned to stop worrying and love Led Zeppelin


RDA?:

100 1_ Gracyk, Theodore.

240 10 Listening to popular music

245 10 Listening to popular music, or, How I learned to stop worrying and
        love Led Zeppelin / $c Theodore Gracyk.

246 30 Listening to popular music

246 30 How I learned to stop worrying and love Led Zeppelin


or alternatively:

100 1_ Gracyk, Theodore.

245 10 Listening to popular music, or, How I learned to stop worrying and
        love Led Zeppelin / $c Theodore Gracyk.

246 30 Listening to popular music

246 30 How I learned to stop worrying and love Led Zeppelin

700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Gracyk, Theodore. $t Listening to popular
        music.


I don't see anything in the LC-PCC PSs that address this situation. 
There is an example of an expression of a work whose manifestation has an 
alternative title in LC-PCC PS for 2.3.6.3 where a 240 for the translation 
is included, but that's a different kind of situation than the one above. 
It seems to me that if we are expecting the 100/245 combination to 
represent a work when no 240 or 7XX entry is made for it, then for titles 
with alternative titles as part of the title proper we have to include a 
240 with the preferred title or a 7XX with the access point for the work. 
Do we need something in the LC-PCC PSs that addresses this?


Adam Schiff

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:

> Robert says, "In my opinion we should consider abandoning the 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a method of recording the authorized access point for a work or expression and only use 7XX."  Yes, I think RDA is in fact leaning toward that, isn't it?  To follow its spirit maybe we should record the manifestation title in 245, skip the 1xx, and record creators only in direct association (7xx name/title fields) with works/expressions contained within the manifestation.  Actually, though, I think for a single-work manifestation I have no problem representing the work/expression with a 100/240 combination, which would often mean a 240 that repeats the 245.  That firmly associates a creator with a work/expression, not a manifestation as the 100/245 does, and does not seem to me a problem.
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
>
> I agree with Stephen. To add to what he has said, I think this is analogous to the years of trouble we had with 490/440/8XX and after much experience finally understood that (to quote Stephen) the "different data elements [were] doing different jobs": 490 gives the form of the series found in the manifestation; 8XX gives the authorized access point for the work (the series), to be used in indexing.
>
> It seems strange to me that we have three different places to find the authorized access point for a work in a MARC bibliographic record: the combination of 1XX + 240; the combination of 1XX + 245 $a; or 7XX. To me this is the confusing situation, not the procedure where we include two access points in 7XX, one for each expression in the resource. In my opinion we should consider abandoning the 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a method of recording the authorized access point for a work or expression and only use 7XX. (That goes for 130, too-it makes even less sense to me than the 1XX/2XX procedure to use 130 in an RDA context to record the authorized access point for a work that is contained in the resource. RDA has no concept of title main entry, and 1XX in RDA is used to represent the principal creator. The work represented in 130 isn't the creator of itself.)
>
> On a practical level, experience teaching RDA has shown it is much easier to teach if you can simply say (following the current procedure): if there is only one work or expression represented in the resource, the authorized access point is recorded in 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a. In all other cases (when there are two or more works or expressions represeted in the resource), authorized access points for the works and/or expressions are recorded in sets of 7XX fields. (And it would be even easier to teach if we could simply say that authorized access points for works and expressions are in all cases recorded in 7XX fields).
>
> Another practical point (that I know will be dismissed by many, but anyway ...) is that although we have this supposedly efficient shorthand of allowing a substitute of 1XX + 245$a (instead of 1XX + 240) if the title proper matches the preferred title used in the authorized access point for the work, most systems that I know of do not index this as a name-title (it's hard enough to get systems to index 1XX + 240 as a name-title), so while theoretically we have identified the work by recording 1XX + 245$a, in many cases it is of little practical value when it comes to finding the work, at least if you want an alphabetical list that collocates all the works/expressions of an author in the database.
>
> 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 Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
>
> Duplication does not necessarily mean redundancy. My left front tire may be a total duplicate of my right front tire, but neither one of them is redundant, because they're doing different jobs.
>
> An authorized access point for the Work/Expression contained in a resource is often different in form from the resource's 1XX/245, and is always different in purpose. The fact that practice has elided the expression of resource title and uniform title in the 245 when they're the "same" was always an efficiency that came with a great cost--the sorry state of Work/Expression authorized access points in most of our catalogs. If we had recognized early on that these are different data elements doing different jobs even when they happen to look the same, we'd be in much better shape now.
>
> Stephen
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> I see I said "works" repeatedly in reference to the English and Spanish versions of the novel.  I should of course have said "expressions."  Sorry about that.  There are in fact two expressions.  6.27.3 is related to creating authorized access points for them.  It would seem that at least one AAP must go in a 700 field, since we no longer use 240's with multiple language qualifiers.  But while I remember PCC training as saying that BOTH expressions go in 700 name/title entries, Kevin Randall and John Marr have disputed that approach.  If the whole problem is that I'm remembering the training wrong, I'll be happy to be told, but Kevin appeared to confirm implicitly that that was PCC's stance.
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Hostage
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
>
> I'm puzzled by it too, but I think in this case there is only one work, although in 2 expressions.  As such, the authorized access point for the work is provided according to 6.27.1.2.  It still doesn't make sense to have an equivalent 700 field.
>
> If there were actually 2 works, then the preferred title might be "Novels. Selections" (6.2.2.10.3).
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
> Langdell Hall 194 //
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974> (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409> (fax)
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 17:38
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
>
> I'm puzzled about something.
>
> Say you've got a book that is a bilingual edition of a creative work.
>
> 245:  :  Intruder in the dust = $b Intruso en el polvo / $c William Faulkner.
>
> As I understand it, we are to create two name-title entries-for example:
>
> 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust.
> 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust. $l Spanish.
>
> Now, given that we have authorized access points for each of the two works in this manifestation, do we also make a 100 field for Faulkner?  If so, why?
>
> I am not sure I can see where RDA either requires or allows us to make a creator access point that relates to a manifestation, as the 100 would here, since what the 245 holds is the manifestation title (though it happens to be the same as the preferred title of one of the two works.  It wouldn't always be).  It would seem that the 700 $a subfields have covered the creator of the works (doing the job previously done by the 100 of the 100/240 "Spanish & English" combination we used to make).
>
> Help me out here, please.  Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

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

March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
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