LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  December 2015

PCCLIST December 2015

Subject:

Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda authority records

From:

Yuji Tosaka <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Yuji Tosaka <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:13:24 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (409 lines)

Adam,

Isn't the first 700 field below, modeled after an example in LC-PCC 6.27.3, an expression access point? I always have been unsure about this PS, which states that "when the original expression and one translation are in a compilation, give an analytical authorized access point for each expression," suggesting that two 700 fields are both for expressions contained in a manifestation? The preceding statement--"Identify an expression in a language different from that of the original expression by adding the name of the language in subfield $l to the authorized access point for the work"--seems to make things confusing to me by having an original expression access point constructed exactly like a work access point.

Yuji

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:19:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda authority records

Mike,

I recall reporting that as an error but guess it never got fixed.  It's a work access point so the designator must be for work too.

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900




On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:15 PM -0800, "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

But in that same example (bottom of page 23), the original work's AAP without the language attribute is called an expression:


Example: Parallel text
100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $e author
245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
246 31 $a Cartero
546 ## $a English and Spanish.
700 12 $i Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.*
700 12 $i Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.*

________________________________

Adapted from LC training materials developed by Les Hawkins and Hien Nguyen.

Mike


On 12/11/2015 4:16 PM, Yuji Tosaka wrote:

According to the PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group Report below (page 23) as well as the current LC-PCC PS 6.27.3, the fist 700 field would not have a subfield $l. I remember that this LC-PCC PS was changed in the summer of 2012 so that the original language of expression is not recorded in the authorized access point.

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Relat-Desig-TG-report.rtf

--
Yuji Tosaka
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
The College of New Jersey
Ewing, NJ 08628-0718
Phone: (609) 771-2156

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:48:44 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda authority records

Thanks for clearing that up, Bob.  Everything you said here makes
perfect sense, I think.

So maybe this:

245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Mongolian.

and this:

041 1# $a eng $a spa $h eng
100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $e author.
245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
246 31 $a Cartero
546 ## $a English and Spanish.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t
Mail carrier. $l English
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t
Mail carrier. $l Spanish.


I distinctly remember that there was more opposition to than support for
this approach when it was being discussed either here or on the RDA list
at some point after the Sept. 2012 LC RDA Training was released.  I
wonder if there still is any opposition?

Aloha,
Mike

Michael A. Chopey
Catalog Librarian
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968



On 12/11/2015 2:27 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:



In RDA the only kind of description (including its accompanying
authorized access point) that can stand for more than one entity is
for the person entity (see 8.6, 8.11, and 9.19.1.1), and PCC has
disallowed that. And even in 8.6/8.11/9.19.1.1 allowance for
undifferentiation is only permitted within a single entity, not
between different entities. There is no justification in RDA for using
the same description (and access point) for a work and an expression,
which are different entities.

Using the access point for the work to represent both the work and all
expressions in the original language is an AACR2 practice that did not
come forward into RDA because it just doesn’t work in the
FRBR/entity-relationship model which RDA is based on. AACR2’s practice
wasn’t necessarily bad, it was just based on a different model from
RDA. There has never as far as I know been a consensus that we should
revert to this AACR2 practice and in my opinion doing so would be a
big mistake. It is certainly possible for a cataloger to decide only
to give access to the work, but let’s not make the mistake of thinking
that that access point represents both a work and an expression in the
original language. I think this has been masked a bit by the earlier
practice (that is, earlier than the publication of the PCC guidelines
on use of relationship designators) of not necessarily using the
relationship designator with the work or expression authorized access
point, but the addition of the relationship designator in cases such
as this makes it perfectly clear what the authorized access point
represents (as was the intent of the relaitionship designator). There
is no relationship designator “Container of (work or expression)”
because no such relationship exists in the model, so we’re forced to
realize that the access point is either for the work or for an
expression, but not both.

By the way it is certainly possible (and indeed it is not only
possible but appears to be expected) under RDA 6.27.3 to add the
original language to the authorized access point for the work in order
to construct an authorized access point representing “a particular
expression of a work”, and a large number RDA authorized access points
have been so established in the NAF.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
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 *Michael Chopey
*Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 3:52 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
authority records

Thanks, Bob. I remember some time ago there was a desire by some to
add the language of the original to its 7XX analytical AP in these
cases, and I thought the consensus after that discussion was that the
AAP for the original work stood for both the work (all expressions of
it) and the original-language expression of the work.  But maybe I'm
misremembering or maybe there was no consensus.

Mike

On 12/11/2015 12:02 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

    As I understand the PCC practice, the last is the correct
    formulation if you’re going to bring out the work and the Chinese
    expression. In any case, “730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t
    Altan tobci.” is not correct because “Altan tobci” stands for the
    work, not any expression of the work (including the Mongolian
    expression).

    Robert L. Maxwell
    Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
    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 *Michael Chopey
    *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 2:33 PM
    *To:* [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
    *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved
    rda authority records

    Then which of the following is correct for the work represented by
    pre-RDA NAR no2010116269? The title on the manifestation is in
    Chinese; it contains both the original Mongolian and a Chinese
    translation of the original.

    This:

    130 0_ Altan tobci.
    245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
    730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci.
    730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.

    or this:

    130 0_ Altan tobci.
    245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
    730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
    730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.

    or this:

    245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
    730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
    730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.


    Thank you,
    Mike


    Michael A. Chopey
    Catalog Librarian
    Hamilton 008
    University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
    Honolulu, HI  96822

    phone (808) 956-2753
    fax (808) 956-5968



    On 12/11/2015 5:46 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

        I agree with Adam that using 1XX/240 if there is only one
        work/expression and 7XX's if there are more than one is the
        PCC practice, but I also agree with John that there are
        logical problems with it. For example, continuing to use 130
        seems very strange since 130 represents the authorized access
        point for a work, not an entity capable of creation, so
        there's no way that an entity represented by a 130 can be
        considered the principal creator of the work--it *is* the
        work. I also have advocated for some time making obsolete the
        peculiar MARC practice of cutting an authorized access point
        for a work or expression in two and recording part of it (the
        creator) in 1XX and the other part (the title and other
        additions) in 240. This causes all sorts of problems, not the
        least being it's difficult to control in some systems
        (including OCLC, apparently). It would in my opinion be better
        always to record work and expression authorized access points
        in 7XX fields, rather than sometimes recording them in 1XX/240
        (when there is only one). I did that on my earliest RDA
        records during the test period, before PCC practice solidified.

        However, the current PCC practice is as Adam describes and
        should (in my opinion) be followed until it's changed. (A
        change I would welcome, you will not be surprised to hear.)

        Bob

        Robert L. Maxwell
        Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
        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
        <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 7:45:57 AM
        *To:* [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating
        new/improved rda authority records

        By this logic, what is the basis for recording anything in 1XX
        in the MARC record?  A creator is recorded in relationship to
        a work, but that relationship is already covered in the 7XX
        fields.  In the idiosyncratic MARC scheme, 1XX represents the
        "main entry", a concept that is allegedly dead in RDA.  If the
        resource contains only one work or expression, we use the 1XX
        in combination with the 240 or 245 to name the work.  If, when
        there is more than one work or expression, we say we can't use
        240 or 130, then there must be no preferred title for the
        creator named in the 1XX to relate to.  In fact, the same
        logic applies when there is only one work or expression.  We
        have always conflated the manifestation with expression and
        work in the 245 and this made sense in the world of card
        catalogs, but there's nothing in RDA that calls for doing that.

        ------------------------------------------

        John Hostage

        Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

        Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

        Langdell Hall 194

        Harvard Law School Library

        Cambridge, MA 02138

        [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>

        +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

        +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
        ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging
        [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
        on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
        *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 22:04
        *To:* [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating
        new/improved rda authority records

        240 (or 130 for works and expressions named by title alone)
        should only be used when there is a single work or expression
        in the resource being described.  If there are two or more,
        use 7XX analytic entries instead (and precede them with $i
        Container of (expression)).

        Adam L. Schiff

        Principal Cataloger

        University of Washington Libraries

        Box 352900

        Seattle, WA 98195-2900

        [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>

        (206) 543-8409

        (206) 685-8782 fax

        *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging
        [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
        *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:15 PM
        *To:* [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
        *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating
        new/improved rda authority records

        Do others agree with Mark?  A 240 is an expression as well as
        a 7XX, so why do can't we have a 240 and a 700 instead of two
        7XXs?

        In practical sense, for those ILSs based on the unit card, the
        240 will display (without the coding) at the top of the record
        and will be recognizable to the patron.

        Gene

        On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ehlert, Mark K.
        <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

            On Dec 10, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
            <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
            >
            > Also if the unif. title is under an author, would there
            be 240 10 title. English and then a 700 10  Name. Title.
            Latin.
            > Or are there two 7XXs instead??  This latter question
            has been just discussed. I thought when unif. titles were
            split, one was a 240, the other is a 7XX.

            Two 7XXs.  Each language expression is only one part of
            the whole resource. Thus, AAPs for the parts are presented
            as a chain of analytical added entries.

            --
            Mark K. Ehlert  O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
            Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas
              Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue
            Phone: 651-962-5488 <tel:651-962-5488>           St. Paul,
            MN 55105
            <http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/><http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>

              "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
            the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
            Verona," Act I, Scene iii

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager