I'd like to sound out the group for ideas of what we should do in the future for series where the content consists of text in parallel languages. For instance, the series Die Sammlung Gegenwartskunst = The collection of contemporary art is made up of bilingual resources issued with German and English expressions in parallel texts.
In the past we would have accommodated this by the addition of |l Language & Language. This seems to be the same situation we face in bibliographic records where we were accustomed to having a 240, for instance, with the representative languages.
In fact, the Series Policy Task Force recommended a similar approach to what we use in in bibliographic records. See section I.4. Series that Exist in More Than One Language Expression of the policy document (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PCCSCTSeriesPolicyListRecommendations20140117-SCSMay29.docx). Here is the recommendation presented.
1. Create a work-level authority record for the series. For bilingual series, this authorized access point would probably be used only for subject access.
100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers
2. Create expression-level authority records for the language expressions containing authorized access points created by appending the language (including the original language) to the authorized access point for the series expression
100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l English
100 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l Spanish
3. Use the authorized access points for the language expressions in bibliographic records, as appropriate.
800 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l English
800 1# $a Curtis, Jennifer Keats. $t Animal helpers. $l Spanish
4. For bilingual series, since the visual clue “language & language” will no longer exist in the authorized access point, we recommend including a 655 field in the bibliographic record for the resource:
655 #0 Bilingual books.
The Standing Committee on Training reviewed the Policy Group recommendations and rejected this approach. But they did not suggest an alternative. Perhaps someone from that group could clarify what the SCT intended SHOULD be done instead.
Should we continue to add multiple languages to the AAP? I would personally love to continue that practice, since it lets me see in one access point the combination I might be looking for. But I see that it presents problems, of course.
We could add a 380 Bilingual books |2 lcsh and a note conveying the more exact nature of the resources. But would that be enough to help a patron find what they are looking for?
Does anyone else have a fresh idea of how we can convey the nature of the series and its individual volumes?
Thanks for thinking about this perplexing problem. I see quite a number of these series, and I would like to have a definite decision to follow. I'm hoping that discussion may unearth something new for us to embrace.
Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641