Clarification about what is when:
During the US RDA Test, the guidelines in the document "US RDA Test Policy for the Extra Set: Use of Existing Authority and Bibliographic Records" apply. When creating a new name/title or a new higher body/subordinate body NAR, use the RDA form for the name or the higher body even if the RDA form is represented only in the 7XX field of an AACR2 record. Why? Because the Coordinating Committee wanted pure RDA access points in the bibliographic records.
After the Test is over (what the PoCo decision addresses), John's explanation applies. Why? Because PoCo wants all access points in RDA records to be controlled by 1XX in authority records.
Judy K.
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2)
John,
Your explanation sounds correct/best to me but that is not what happened in this situation
See n 81079488 100 0 $aShenute,$dca. 348-466
no2010160564 100 0 $aShenute,$dapproximately 348-466.$tWorks.$kSelections.$lEnglish.$f1993
When I brought this to LC's attention--my understanding of the RDA test rules were that the new record should still follow the established form in the 1xx--I was told:
[LC COMMENT:] In the document "US RDA Test Policy for the Extra Set: Use of Existing Authority and Bibliographic Records" (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc1.doc) this situation is Scenario 1, section 2: When the entity represented by the AACR2 form in the 1XX in the authority record is needed as ***part of an authorized access point*** in the bibliographic record (e.g., the person in a name/title access point, the higher body in a body/subordinate body access point, the local place as a qualifier in a conference access point) ....
It would be OK if someone added an AACR2 form in a 7XX field in the new RDA compound authority record, but we weren't requiring people to do that. As I recall, the coordinating committee didn't want to force people to formulate both an RDA and AACR2 form for the new entity (the time spent was already skewed against RDA for having to record the form in the AACR2 record for the name-only record).
---
Things are still not clear to even the testers, let alone everyone else.
Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS
Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio Texas 78265
1-800-531-7678
[log in to unmask]
www.marcive.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Riemer, John
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes
> (Clarification on Decision 2)
>
> Bob,
>
> The 1XX forms from existing AACR2 authority records are to be used in
> bibliographic records. This is true even when the
> AACR2 form represents a "building block" in a new heading being
> formulated. RDA forms may be added to 7XX fields in the authority
> records, particularly when the heading form would be different.
> Examples:
>
>
> AACR2 authority record
>
> 100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev.
> 700 14 $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman)
>
> New heading needed for cataloging
>
> 100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev. $t Poems 700 14 $a Brown, George $c
> (Clergyman). $t Poems
>
>
> AACR2 authority record
>
> 110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London 710 24 $a Royal
> College of Physicians (London, England)
>
> New heading needed for cataloging
>
> 110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Tobacco Advisory
> Group 710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b
> Tobacco Advisory Group
>
>
> The Policy Committee has also slightly revised the final portion of
> Decision 2:
>
> 2. After the test period ends in Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue
> to use the RDA testing guidelines from Jan. 2 until further notice,
> with the exception that already-established
> AACR2 heading forms should be used in bibliographic records.
> This decision will be reevaluated at the time an implementation
> decision is made.
>
> John
>
> John Riemer
> Head, UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center Kinross South 11020
> Kinross Avenue Box 957230 (campus mail code 723011) Los Angeles, CA
> 90095-7230
> +1 310.825.2901 voice
> +1 310.794.9357 fax
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes
>
> Decision 2 needs a bit of clarification, perhaps:
>
> "2. After the test period ends in Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue
> to use the RDA testing guidelines from Jan. 2 until further notice,
> with the exception that already-established
> AACR2 heading forms should be used in bibliographic records.
> This decision will be reevaluated in April 2011."
>
> A. I assume this means we will continue to add 7XX fields to the
> authority records for the RDA form, which may differ from the AACR2
> form in the 1XX field, but we will use the 1XX form in the bib record.
>
> B. What about brand new RDA authority records related to existing
> AACR2 authority forms? Presumably we are to use the RDA form in the
> 1XX of those records (and in the RDA bib record), but what if that
> form differs from the AACR2 form on the related authority record? E.g.
> (example from the "testing
> guidelines"):
>
> AACR2 authority record
>
> 100 1_ $a Brown, George, $c Rev.
> 700 14 $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman)
>
> New RDA authority record
>
> 100 1_ $a Brown, George $c (Clergyman). $t Poems
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Les Hawkins
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:49 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Policy Committee meeting outcomes
>
> PCC Colleagues,
>
> The PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) met November 4-5, 2010 for its annual
> meeting. Decisions and action items from the meeting are available and
> posted on the PCC web site:
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-Actions.html
>
> Les Hawkins
> CONSER Coordinator
> Library of Congress
> [log in to unmask]
>
