Am I correct in believing that the examples in 6.16.1.3.1 and 6.16.1.3.3 
that say "medium of performance: strings" are in error and just got missed 
in the previous round of rule revisions?  Or am I still misunderstanding 
how we're supposed to handle string quartets under RDA?

Thanks in advance,
kt

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Frank, Paul wrote:

> 
> Forwarded from the NACO Music Project discussion list—
>
> 
>
> 
> 
> From: Scharff, Mark [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 3:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NMP-L] New Cataloging Policy Statement for RDA 6.28.1.9.1: No more implied numbering for medium in
> authorized access points
>
> 
> 
> Apologies for cross-posting—some of you will see this a lot.  At least I think it’s *good* news. J
>
> 
> 
> Music catalogers from MLA-BCC, the NACO Music Project, and the LC Music Division have proposed a new LC-PCC Policy
> Statement for RDA 6.28.1.9.1.  The PS has been approved and will be published in the October release of the RDA
> Toolkit.  It will also be available in pre-publication form at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC RDA
> guidelines/LC-PCC PS 6.28.1.9.1.docx
> 
> Normally, all PSs should only be followed after they are published.  In the case of the PS for RDA 6.28.1.9.1, MLA,
> NMP, LC, and PCC are recommending that music catalogers begin following this practice immediately.  This applies to
> new AAPs and revisions of existing ones in both bibliographic and authority records.  In authority records, such
> revisions have to be accompanied by any other changes needed for coding the record as RDA.
>
> 
> 
> What does this mean in cataloging?
>
> 
> 
> RDA 6.28.1.9.1 states:
> 
> Add the medium of performance...
> 
> Exception b) If there is more than one part for a particular instrument or voice, do not add the number of parts if
> the number is implicit in the preferred title.
>
> 
> 
> The new LC-PCC PS for 6.28.1.9.1 instructs catalogers to disregard exception b) and to always add the number of parts
> in the authorized access point (AAP) when there is more than one part for a particular instrument or voice.
>
> 
> 
> Text of the new policy statement:
> 
> LC-PCC PS for 6.28.1.9.1
> 
> ALTERNATIVE
> 
> LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative: Do not apply Exception b). Always supply the number of parts for a
> particular instrument or voice, even if the number of parts is implicit in the preferred title. Apply all other
> exceptions in 6.28.1.9.1.
>
> 
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Previously: Boccherini, Luigi, 1743–1805. Duets, violins, G. 58, A major
> 
> Now: Boccherini, Luigi, 1743–1805. Duets, violins (2), G. 58, A major
>
> 
> 
> Previously: Atterberg, Kurt, 1887–1974. Quartets, violins, viola, cello, no. 2, op. 11
> 
> Now: Atterberg, Kurt, 1887–1974. Quartets, violins (2), viola, cello, no. 2, op. 11
>
> 
> 
> Previously: Rosetti, Antonio, approximately 1750–1792. Quartets, clarinets, horns, M. B17, E♭ major
> 
> Now: Rosetti, Antonio, approximately 1750–1792. Quartets, clarinets (2), horns (2), M. B17, E♭ major
>
> 
> 
> The reason for this change has to do with recent changes to RDA.  In the April 2014 Toolkit update, many of the
> prohibitions for recording medium of performance that had been in 6.15 (medium as an element) were moved to 6.28.1.9.1
> (medium in an access point) as exceptions.
>
> 
> 
> With the removal of standard combinations of instruments from RDA (in the April 2014 update), those standard
> combinations must now be listed as individual instruments in authorized access points. A project is currently underway
> to programmatically convert these headings to their new form.  The project is part of the RDA Authorities Phase 3 Task
> Group under the leadership of Gary Strawn.  During discussions about this project, the utility of continuing the
> practice of implied numbering came up.  The consensus of the parties involved (MLA, NMP, LC, and PCC) was that
> continuing the practice of using implied numbering would be unhelpful to users and is an unnecessary layer of
> complexity when one is adding medium of performance to an access point.  It was therefore decided to propose a policy
> statement allowing catalogers to ignore Exception b) under RDA 6.28.1.9.1.
>
> 
> 
> Questions about this policy statement may be addressed to me.  Thanks to Paul Frank, Dave Reser, and Valerie Weinberg
> at the Library of Congress for facilitating the early implementation.
>
> 
> 
> Mark Scharff
> 
> Coordinator, NACO-Music Project
> 
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
>