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
>
|
