Print

Print


I'm not sure what "code it as such" means here. There's no MARC code
to indicate rules for a single name field; descriptive rules are coded
at the record level. We could add an identifier in $0 linking the bib
heading to an authority where the rules were encoded--is that what's
intended? And would use of $0 identifiers be an exception for AACR2
headings in RDA records, or general practice for all headings with
matching authorities?

Also, I agree with Casey Mullin--RDA tells how to narrow the scope of
a heading for an expression, but it doesn't give clear guidance on
when in general that's appropriate. Presumably that's the sort of
policy decision which could vary among different implementations of
RDA and FRBR. We need guidance on this point, but what I've seen
(e.g., the LCPS on preserving year as a qualifier for Works uniform
titles) suggests an intent to continue past policy in this area, which
would mean using expression work identifiers at a more general level
than Bob Maxwell calls for.

Stephen

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Riemer, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Diane and others,
>
> It appears best to follow AACR2 for the entire heading, if any part of it is AACR2, and to code it as such.  Hybrid headings could turn out to be too challenging to get flipped into complete conformance to a single code, once an implementation decision is reached.
>
> If the "building block" you are using is RDA, keep the entire new heading in RDA.  You may consult [log in to unmask] for help.  Adding 7XX fields in authority records is considered optional.
>
> If you encounter a situation such as Bob Maxwell described today, where the AACR2 heading and the RDA heading are not equivalent in scope, and a portion of the required RDA heading would conflict with an established AACR2 heading, use AACR2 to catalog the item during this interim period.
>
>    John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2)
>
> John,
>
> If you are using an AACR2 authority record as a building block for a new RDA heading, how would the resulting authority record be coded: AACR2 or RDA?  If in your second example, the new subordinate entity was not Tobacco Advisory Group, but the Department of Tobacco Advice, would a library doing RDA cataloging establish a hybrid heading ($a=AACR2 and $b=RDA)?
>
> 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 Department of Tobacco Advice
> 710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b Department of Tobacco Advice
>
> OR
>
> 110 2_ $a Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Dept of Tobacco Advice
> 710 24 $a Royal College of Physicians (London, England). $b Department of Tobacco Advice
>
>
> Also, what about guidance for those of us who are continuing to catalog in AACR2, but may encounter RDA authority records.  I assume the PCC still wants us to use the form of name in the 1XX field in our bibliographic record.  Are we expected to add 7XXs for the AACR2 form of the name?  And what happens if you need to use an RDA authority record as a building block for a new AACR2 heading?  How would that resulting authority record get coded?
>
>
> Diane Boehr
> Head of Cataloging
> National Library of Medicine
> 8600 Rockville Pike, Room 1N11
> Bethesda, MD 20894
> 301-435-7059
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riemer, John [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 1:30 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]
>



-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428