PCCLIST readers,

This message follows up on my previous one dated October 12 (no responses received, but never mind!)  in which I discussed whether "Works. Selections" represents a "work" entity or an "expression" entity.  Perhaps the answer depends on the context, which as I see it is:

•       According to LC policy "Works. Selections" is used without further qualification to represent both work and expression, except where differentiation is required.

•       According to PCC policy, contributors of name authority records for compilations can follow LC policy but have the option of providing further qualifying information.

If such statements are incorrect please advise.  Meanwhile here's what appears to be support for these assertions.

LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 "Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression" has:

LC practice:  ... When identifying an expression not already represented by a name authority record, do not add another characteristic to differentiate one such expression from another expression. ...

PCC practice: Pending outcome of report/recommendations from the PCC Access Point for Expressions Task Group.

That report (submitted to the PCC Policy Committee on October 15, 2012) is available here:
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCCExpressionTGReport.pdf
So the report is available, but apparently its outcome (if any) has not been incorporated into LC-PCC PS.

The report has (page 5): "... the current LCPS 6.27.3 instructs LC catalogers to construct access points for expressions in specific situations and not to further differentiate upon those situations. Thus, an access point for an expression such as “Name. Title. Language” may represent more than one expression."  By analogy, "Work. Selections" might represent more than one expression.

Page 9 has this recommendation.

6.27.3 Authorized access points for expressions. Follow the LC practice for situations when access points for expressions in bibliographic records are required, and creating and using authority records for such access points are required; use cataloger’s judgment on exercising the optional use of additional elements to further differentiate upon the access point when considered useful for distinctive expressions. When doing so, follow LC-PCCPS practice in formulating these access point elements.

The operational phrase appears to be "optional use of additional elements".  Beyond this, I don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps someone can comment further.  One final note: my question is about formulation of access points, not about creation of authority records.

Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University Libraries
[log in to unmask]