The RDA element that is being applied here is Other Distinguishing
Characteristic of the Work. It's not required to be in the language of
the work.
6.6.1.1 Other distinguishing characteristic of the work is a
characteristic other than form of work, date of work, or place of origin
of the work. It serves to differentiate a work from another work with the
same title or from the name of a person, family, or corporate body.
6.6.1.2 Take information on other distinguishing characteristics of the
work from any source.
6.6.1.3 Record other distinguishing characteristics of the work.
Record other distinguishing characteristics of the work as separate
elements, as parts of access points, or as both. For instructions on
recording other distinguishing characteristics of the work as part of the
authorized access point, see 6.27.1.9.
For example, consider these works that have qualifiers that are different
from the language of the title of the work:
Conference proceedings and monographs (Polska Akademia Nauk. Stacja
Naukowa w Wiedniu)
Languages of Asia and Africa (Institut vostokovedeniia (Akademiia nauk
SSSR))
Hera of Samos (Musee du Louvre)
Bloch, Augustyn. Gilgamesz (Ballet version)
Bloch, Augustyn. $t Gilgamesz (Concert version)
Catholic Church. Rota Romana. Decisiones Aegidii Bellemerae (Long
version)
Cordoba (Spain). Fuero (Latin version)
Cordoba (Spain). Fuero (Spanish version)
Croissant (Middle French prose version)
Da zang jing (Koryo version)
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 1762-1814. Wissenschaftslehre 1804 (1st version)
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 1762-1814. Wissenschaftslehre 1804 (2nd version)
Purgatoire de saint Patrice (Old French prose version)
Theodore bar Konai, active 8th century-9th century. Liber scholiorum
(Seert version)
Theodore bar Konai, active 8th century-9th century. Liber scholiorum
(Urmiah version)
Most of these are not yet coded as RDA, but they are all valid access
points in RDA I think and you can see that the language of the qualifier
may not be the same as the language of the title of the work. Other
Distinguishing Characteristic of Work can be basically anything that
serves to distinguish one work from another when form of work, date of
work, or place of work is not sufficient or appropriate to differentiate
the works.
Adam Schiff
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Stephen Early wrote:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:22:30 +0000
> From: Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Differentiating titles proper
>
> I think this is an interesting exercise, so forgive me if I put it further to the test (best way to see if something actually will work in the field or if it needs to be improved upon):
>
> Regarding your first choice, something like the following?
>
> 100 1_ Black, Alison Rebeck, $e author.
> 240 10 $a Evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs (Findings after the first year of implementation)
> 245 14 The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs : $b findings after the first year of implementation
>
> Second choice (shorter, but looks like it requires more cataloger judgment than the first):
>
> 100 1_ Black, Alison Rebeck, $e author.
> 240 10 $a Evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs (First year report)
> 245 14 The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs : $b findings after the first year of implementation
>
> Regarding the second choice solution approach: what if the three titles were published in the same year, the language was Dutch, and your Dutch knowledge was less than fluent (I presume the qualifier should be in Dutch as well? Or is there flexibility in an English based catalog?) (I wish I had a real world example at my fingertips, but I know they're out there :-) )
>
>
>
> Stephen T. Early
> Cataloger
> Center for Research Libraries
> 6050 S. Kenwood
> Chicago, IL 60637
> 773-955-4545 x326
> [log in to unmask]
> CRL website: www.crl.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Differentiating titles proper
>
> Stephen,
>
> If all were in the same year, then I would have probably used the subtitles as the qualifiers. Or perhaps (First year report) and (Final report). The executive summary solution of mine would not be changed. It is definitely a part of the final report in my mind.
>
> Adam
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Stephen Early wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:55:48 +0000
>> From: Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Differentiating titles proper
>>
>> I agree with Kevin on this as well.
>> My only beef with 245 $p is that it doesn't search properly in Connexion's "sca ti=" browse search - although it does search properly with "sca tiw" (but the latter doesn't search properly on $b - which means you're out of luck entirely attempting a browse search on a 245 with both $p and $b text). But then that's a Connexion problem that could have been fixed years ago when I complained about it then and likely a whole different discussion.
>> So, despite that quibble, I'm going with Kevin.
>>
>> But to give Adam's solution its due, let me ask:
>>
>> Adam, if all three reports had been issued in the same year, what qualifier would you then have used in your 240's?
>>
>> Stephen T. Early
>> Cataloger
>> Center for Research Libraries
>> 6050 S. Kenwood
>> Chicago, IL 60637
>> 773-955-4545 x326
>> [log in to unmask]
>> CRL website: www.crl.edu
>>
>>
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:38 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Differentiating titles proper
>>
>> Marty: This is the way I would code the titles proper for the resources in question.
>>
>> 245 04 $a The evaluation of enhanced academic
>> instruction in after-school programs. $p Findings after the first
>> year of implementation
>>
>> 245 04 $a The evaluation of enhanced academic
>> instruction in after-school programs. $p Final report
>>
>> 245 04 $a The evaluation of enhanced academic
>> instruction in after-school programs. $p Final report, executive
>> summary
>>
>> In my experience, it seems that serials catalogers typically are much more ready to accept "subtitle-looking" information as an integral part of the title, whereas monographic catalogers seem to be quite reluctant to do so (and I've never been able to figure out why). Thus we end up with so many things like:
>>
>> 245 00 $a Movies : $b 1930-1939
>>
>> instead of the more logical:
>>
>> 245 00 $a Movies, 1930-1939
>>
>> (made up example, but *quite* typical, and a big pet peeve of mine...)
>>
>> Kevin M. Randall
>> Principal Serials Cataloger
>> Northwestern University Library
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> (847) 491-2939
>>
>> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>>
>>
>> **********************
>>
>> Adam Schiff wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Marty,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the findings after the first year and the final report are separate works, and I would use the year of issuance as the qualifier to distinguish them.
>>
>>
>>
>> 100 1_ Black, Alison Rebeck, $e author.
>>
>> 240 10 Evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school
>> programs (2008)
>>
>> 245 14 The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs : $b findings after the first year of implementation / $c .....
>>
>>
>>
>> 100 1_ Black, Alison Rebeck, $e author.
>>
>> 240 10 Evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school
>> programs (2009)
>>
>> 245 14 The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs : $b final report / $c .....
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think you could say that these are two expressions of a single work. They don't refer to themselves as versions or editions of the same thing, and the content is likely significantly different. Instead of date of work to distinguish the second from the first, you could use other distinguishing characteristic and use the qualifier (Final report) in the second record. I suppose you could also use the subtitle as a qualifier instead of date in the first record. In these two cases, however, dates seem to be the most succinct way to differentiate these two works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now although the executive summary was issued separately, I think you
>> can treat this as a part of the second work and apply RDA 6.2.2.9.1
>> and
>>
>> 6.27.2.2:
>>
>>
>>
>> 100 1_ Black, Alison Rebeck, $e author.
>>
>> 240 10 Evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school
>> programs (2009). $p Executive summary
>>
>> 245 14 The evaluation of enhanced academic instruction in after-school programs : $b final report. $p Executive summary / $c .....
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ******************
>>
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bokow, Martin S.
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:58 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [PCCLIST] Differentiating titles proper
>>
>> Dear collective wisdom,
>>
>> When transcribing the title of a resource (RDA 2.3), there is a longstanding tendency to transcribe the main title as the title proper, and the remainder of the title, which usually appears in a smaller font, as "other title information." This can result in different works having the same authorized access point (AAP), creating the need to distinguish the preferred titles by additional elements - what we all know as uniform titles. GPO is seeking advice on ways to differentiate such titles in the title proper of the resource (which determines the preferred title) when possible, in order to avoid the creation of unnecessary uniform titles. In considering the examples that I would like to offer, another consideration arises - do the multiple resources actually embody different works (and do they need to be distinguished)? A model of this concept appears in the figure at the bottom of page 4 of: http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF. I'm basing my thinking on RDA and the!
!
>
> LC-PCC PSs 6.0, 6.27.1.9, 6.27.1.5 (especially the bottom text and example), and 6.27.3.
>>
>> I have about 5 examples total, but I'll start with one. Please see the title pages for the following 3 resources, and tell us (on or off the list) how you would treat these and record the title proper of each:
>>
>> http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS105990 (2.3.1.7.1? LC-PCC PS 2.3.1.7?)
>> http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS121574 (2.3.1.7.1? LC-PCC PS 2.3.1.7?)
>> http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo44686 (If you would just treat this executive summary as accompanying material or as one item of a multipart, we would like to know that. But, since it was separately issued, please consider also cataloging it as a separate expression/work/manifestation, unless you consider the comprehensive title to be a multipart and would only use a single comprehensive description for all 3 of these links. Is a summary a different work (J.2.2) or expression (J.3.2), and, if cataloged separately, should its AAP be distinguished from that of the full work? Or, for practical purposes, can the summary use the same AAP as the full report, so as to initially collocate, then subsequently be differentiated by subtitle or other displayed elements?)
>>
>> Just one more note-in all the examples that I may submit, please do not consider that an RDA record has no conflict with an AACR2 record because it considers the first-named author to be the creator, while the A2 record does not. Just assume that the A2 record will be recoded to match the RDA record.
>>
>> If you're on vacation (the list is very quiet ...), we'd still like to hear from you when you return.
>>
>> Thanks very much,
>> Marty Bokow | Librarian (Database Integrity & Authority Control) |
>> Library Services & Content Management | ph 202.512.2010 x 31120
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> GPO | OFFICIAL | DIGITAL | SECURE | 732 North Capitol Street, NW,
>> Washington, DC 20401 Connect to us
>> http://www.gpo.gov<http://www.gpo.gov/> |
>> http://www.facebook.com/USGPO |
>> http://www.youtube.com/user/gpoprinter | http://twitter.com/#!/USGPO
>> Find Government information
>> http://www.fdsys.gov<http://www.fdsys.gov/> |
>> http://bookstore.gpo.gov<http://bookstore.gpo.gov/> |
>> http://govbooktalk.gpo.gov<http://govbooktalk.gpo.gov/>
>>
>>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|