 |
 |
Bob Maxwell's post illustrates a very important issue that I think isn't being discussed that much. The differences between RDA and AACR2 are not merely cosmetic. Based on discussions on various lists, it seems some people think of the differences being mostly relatively minor details, such as the lack of abbreviations, whether certain elements are required or not, etc. etc. Just as some people thought of the difference between AACR2 and AACR1 as mainly ISBD punctuation (I know of some catalogers who would add ISBD punctuation to a pre-AACR2 record and then code it as being AACR2--eek!!!) AACR2 brought about significant changes to the entire basis of the description and access points: two specific examples are more strict transcription of the title proper and statement of responsibility, and choice of main entry heading. RDA represents a complete revolution in thinking about description and access. For example, we are recording specific named elements, not just cobbling together "a record". And, as Bob illustrates very well in his post, the entire nature of access points has been redefined, to make the data fit into the FRBR framework. Just tacking on AACR2 headings to a description based on the RDA guidelines does not necessarily "an RDA record" make. Kevin Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: [log in to unmask] phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 > -----Original Message----- > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Robert Maxwell > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:14 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on > Decision 2) > > John and PoCo members, > > Diane Boehr makes an important point here when she brings up the topic of > hybrid heading strings. This is particularly crucial regarding work and > expression records. > > AACR2 uniform title headings were not designed with FRBR in mind and so > unsurprisingly do not conform to the FRBR entity model followed by RDA. For > example, the heading string > > Homer. Iliad > > represents in AACR2 not just the work "Iliad" but also all the Greek-language > expressions of the Iliad (and there are many). > > Homer. Iliad. English > > represents in AACR2 not just "the" English-language expression of the Iliad, > but *all* of the English-language expressions of the Iliad (and there are > many). > > RDA does not admit authorized access points that represent more than one > expression. They must be distinguished from one another. In the case of the > Iliad, > > Homer. Iliad > > would stand for the work in RDA, but because this work has been realized in > more than one expression, the same access point cannot stand for expressions > of the work. It must be qualified in some way so that each expression is > distinctly identified. See RDA 6.9-12 and 6.27.3. So the various Greek > expressions would be given access points such as these: > > Homer. Iliad. Greek (West) [for the recent Teubner edition by Martin L. West] > > Homer. Iliad. Greek (Leaf) [for the school edition by Walter Leaf] > > Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf and Hentze) [for the earlier Teubner edition > edited by Dindorf and corrected by Hentze] > > Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf) [for Dindorf's uncorrected edition] > > Because there are more than one English translation, there are more than one > expression, and so "Homer. Iliad. English" can't be used without a qualifier > in RDA; for example: > > Homer. Iliad. English (Rieu) [the translation by E.V. Rieu] > > Homer. Iliad. English (Chapman) [the translation by George Chapman] > > Homer. Iliad. English (Lang, Leaf and Myers) [the translation by Andrew Lang, > Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers] > > So there's a fundamental (and I think irreconcilable) difference between how > AACR2 and RDA treat access points for works and expressions. In many, perhaps > most, cases the established AACR2 uniform title heading (if any) can't be > used in an RDA record; and AACR2 authority records for uniform titles can't > very well be used to represent RDA authorized access points because there > isn't a one-to-one correspondence (the AACR2 authority record for "Homer. > Iliad" stands for both the work and the Greek expressions; RDA needs distinct > records for each of these). > > So, OK, in the case of Homer, we could follow the new PCC post-test policy: > the name piece of the string "Homer" is to be used as established in AACR2, > the "title" portion follows RDA. This is fine because "Homer" legitimately > could be used in RDA for this person. We could create authority records for > any of the expression access points above and legitimately code them "rda". > > But there are a good number of AACR2 name heading forms that cannot be used > in RDA. For example, the form for the author Alcinous, as established in the > authority file using AACR2, is > > Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. > > By the RDA guidelines this heading cannot be used as is in RDA. It must be > modified to > > Alcinous, active 2nd century > > This person wrote a work "Didaskalikos", which exists in more than one > expression. In RDA we need at least the following access points: > > Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) > Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker) > > Following the announced PCC policy, we would instead use, and create new > authority records for: > > Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) > Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker) > > These strings are neither correct for AACR2 nor are they correct for RDA. > Would this authority record be coded AACR2 or RDA? And there is no way to > notify the system or other catalogers when as here the authority record > contains a hybrid string in 1XX. I see this as a major problem with the newly > announced policy. > > Bob > > Robert L. Maxwell > Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568