 |
 |
Stephen, The guideline assumes that AACR2 authority records exist in one situation-- when there is a creator in $a. The guideline does not assume that there is an AACR2 authorized heading for the "... $t Selections. $f [date]" or the "... $l Language 1 & Language 2" headings. There may or not be an authorized AACR2 heading in these cases. Your solution is a roundabout way to meet the PCC obligation to authorize every controllable heading, but I would not consider it an acceptable compromise. The PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories specifically addressed both situations described in the guideline. Although there is still PCC follow-up work to be done and decisions to be made as a result of the task group's report, the task group did recommend, in the case of the second example in the guideline, that any existing AACR2 authority records that contain an ampersand (&) in subfield $l be replaced by separate RDA authority records; any existing AACR2 authority records should be deleted in favor of creating two new RDA authority records. Most importantly, all of this work would need to be done under cataloger (i.e., human) review, not by machine recoding, since a machine would not be able to determine whether the second language was the original language or the language of a second translation. By creating an AACR2 authority record now in this situation to meet the temporary PCC obligation, if the recommendations of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories are accepted, the authority workload is multiplied. By refraining from creating an authority record now in this situation, even though a cataloger will need to create RDA NAR(s) in the future, the work will be done once, not done once and then undone. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:36 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PCC Post-RDA Test policy: Two conflict situations This guideline appears to assume that AACR2 authorities will exist in each of the two problem cases to be converted later to RDA. If no AACR2 authority exists for the "... $t Selections. $f [date]" or the "... $l Language 1 & Language 2" headings, should PCC catalogers create one (i.e., an AACR2 authority) to support (eventually) the RDA bib heading(s)? That could be considered a roundabout way of meeting the PCC obligation to authorize every controllable heading. Thanks, Stephen On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Frank, Paul <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > PCC catalogers creating RDA bibliographic records during the Post-RDA > Test > period: > > > > 1) Please take note of the two conflict situations described below and > the recommended resolution > > 2) These situations will be added to the PCC RDA FAQ (FAQ 3.7) > (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-RDA-FAQ.html) > > 3) Please pardon duplication of this message on other lists > > > > > > The PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines > (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PCC-Post-RDA-Test.html) require PCC > catalogers creating RDA bibliographic records to use either RDA or > AACR2 authorized forms of names and titles in those records - to > follow what is authorized in the LC/NAF. > > > > The guidelines also prohibit the creation of "hybrid" authority records: > > > > "Do not create hybrid AACR2/RDA authorized access points in > establishing new headings or in making additions to existing headings. > Follow one cataloging code or the other in establishing authorized > access points. Catalogers making additions to AACR2 headings or making > new headings based on existing > AACR2 records will use AACR2 rules and appropriate LCRIs. Catalogers > making additions to RDA headings or making new headings based on > existing RDA records will use RDA instructions." > > > > LC's Policy and Standards Division (PSD) and LC's Cooperative Program > Section (Coop) have recently encountered two situations in which the > provisions in the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines are in conflict. The > following examples illustrate how LC proposes to follow the PCC > guidelines not to create hybrid NARs in these two situations. Until > PCC can discuss this further, and in the interest of consistency, the > Coop Section requests that PCC RDA catalogers also follow LC's > proposal, and temporarily refrain from creating authority records in the following two situations: > > > > 1) Works/Selections > > > > a) RDA bibliographic record access points: > > > > 100 1 $a Creator. > > 240 10 $a Works. $k Selections. $f 2009 > > or > > 700 12 $a Creator. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2009. > > > > b) Authority record for creator is coded AACR2. > > > > c) According to PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines, AACR2 rules need to be > used to create expression authority records; however, the AACR2 form > conflicts with the RDA form: > > > > AACR2: $a Creator. $t Selections. $f 2009 > > RDA: $a Creator. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2009 > > > > In this situation, Coop requests that RDA catalogers use an RDA access > point with "Works. Selections" as the preferred title in the RDA > bibliographic record, as noted in a) above, but do not create an > authority record. The form of name for the creator should be the form > represented by the authority record in the LC/NAF. Once proposed > recoding of AACR2 authority records to RDA takes place, the RDA > authority record will be created. (See the Final report of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories). > This will assure the LC/NAF remains free of hybrid authorized access > points for this situation. > > > > 2) Multiple Language Expressions in LC/NAF as AACR2 form > > > > a) RDA bibliographic record access points: > > > > 700 12 $a Creator. $t Work. $l Language 1. > > 700 12 $a Same creator. $t Same work. $l Language 2. > > or > > 730 02 $a Work. $l Language 1. > > 730 02 $a Same work. $l Language 2. > > > > b) Authority record for creator is coded AACR2. > > > > c) AACR2 uniform title authority record: > > > > 100 1 $a Creator. $t Work. $l Language 1 & > Language 2 > > > > In this situation, Coop requests that RDA catalogers use multiple RDA > access points in the RDA bibliographic record, as noted in a) above; > if separate authority records for each expression do not already exist > in the LC/NAF, do not create authority records for each separate > language expression. The form of name for the creator should be the > form represented by the authority record in the LC/NAF. Once proposed > recoding of AACR2 authority records to RDA takes place, two RDA > expression authority records will be created from the one AACR2 uniform title. > > > > Please send any questions on these two situations, or on any other > situations related to PCC RDA policy, to [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