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 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]]
> 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.
> example, the heading string
> Homer. Iliad
> represents in AACR2 not just the work "Iliad" but also all the
> expressions of the Iliad (and there are many).
> Homer. Iliad. English
> represents in AACR2 not just "the" English-language expression of the
> 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
> Iliad,
> Homer. Iliad
> would stand for the work in RDA, but because this work has been realized
> more than one expression, the same access point cannot stand for
> 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.
> 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
> expression, and so "Homer. Iliad. English" can't be used without a
> 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
> Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers]
> So there's a fundamental (and I think irreconcilable) difference between
> AACR2 and RDA treat access points for works and expressions. In many,
> 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
> 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
> records for each of these).
> So, OK, in the case of Homer, we could follow the new PCC post-test
> the name piece of the string "Homer" is to be used as established in
> the "title" portion follows RDA. This is fine because "Homer" legitimately
> could be used in RDA for this person. We could create authority records
> any of the expression access points above and legitimately code them
> But there are a good number of AACR2 name heading forms that cannot be
> in RDA. For example, the form for the author Alcinous, as established in
> 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
> 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