One of the odd deficits in RDA is the lack of a place to record the
original language of a Work as distinct from the language of an Expression.
Accepting that language is not properly an attribute of the Work should not
preclude naming the original language of a Work as an important piece of
contextualizing information about it, as important as date, place of
origin, and history. Original language of the Work should be a defined
attribute with those others. Maybe LC and PCC could work on adding that to
Work attributes in RDA 6 as a step toward more flexible, maybe even
automated solutions to the task of naming Expressions differentiated by


On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Scharff, Mark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Interesting discussion.  Is it too soon to speculate on whether or not it
> would be possible to code field 377 in work authority records?  I *think* I
> understand that "Language of Work" is not an RDA attribute; but if there is
> some sort of tacit understanding that a work authority record for a work
> with a textual component also represents the original expression, encoding
> the 377 for the original language would seem reasonable.  BTW, I was on the
> Expressions task group that Dave mentions, so I know how thorny all this is.
> Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
> Gaylord Music Library
> Washington University in St. Louis
> [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Reser, Dave
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 1:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Distinction between the work and original expression
> (was: NARs with ampersand in subfield $l - do not reuse LCCN)
> Hi Adam,
> As you noted, LC does not routinely make an additional NAR representing
> the original language expression-- this has been the long-time practice in
> the NACO file for general works, where the authority record for the work
> also represents the original expression.  For example, the access point
> "Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet" represents Hamlet the work, as
> well as the original (English) expression, and there is no authority record
> for "Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. English."
> You are correct that the "Mail carrier = El cartero" example in the LC-PCC
> PS for 6.27.3 illustrates this approach (an earlier version included "$l
> English" in the first analytic added entry, but this was removed after
> concerns were raised by the PCC/LC PSD RDA Policy Statements Task Group
> about using different access points for the original work and original
> expression in some cases).   Comments on the final report of the PCC Access
> Points for Expressions Task Group also raised this issue, and follow-up
> activities on that report have been deferred by the PCC Policy Committee to
> the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, which is planning a possible
> questionnaire to get the sense of the PCC.  The LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 is
> labeled as LC practice because there has been no resolution at this point
> (there is a note in the PS that indicates the PCC has the topic under
> discussion).  [You also mentioned Appendix 1 to LC-PCC PS for I
> wouldn't read too much 'RDA policy' into that statement considering the
> first cautionary sentence "Note: This appendix is provisional until the
> Program for Cooperative Cataloging has reviewed and revised it for RDA."]
> The guidelines for when LC would make a title or name/title authority
> record are in DCM Z1 (we generally wouldn't make an authority record for
> the original expression in cases like this); great flexibility is extended
> to PCC folks there as well-- "PCC practice:  NACO participants may
> contribute name authority records for works or expressions as needed for
> cataloging."
> This is a complicated issue given the impact on the legacy authority file
> as well as bibliographic issues-- what one might do in a 'perfect' RDA
> environment without this legacy would likely be different.  You may know
> that some (at least 1) PCC library has already started moving in this
> direction and feels very strongly about this, so I can't advise you on what
> is right or wrong at this point, but will say that for now LC will wait
> until the issue is further discussed by the PCC, potential solutions
> identified, and a plan for file maintenance is in place before changing its
> practice.
> Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NARs with ampersand in subfield $l - do not reuse LCCN
> Ana,
> Will a $l with the original language of expression be included in the new
> NAR, or are we to just create an NAR for the work and let that represent
> the original expression?  LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 seems to indicate the latter
> should be done (but it's not clearly labeled either as LC practice, PCC
> practice, or both), and it doesn't actually deal with NARs, just access
> points in bibliographic records.  But the clear implication of the example
> there is that we don't create a separate expression NAR for the original
> language expression:
> 100 1#  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953-
> 245 10  $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
> 700 12  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.
> 700 12  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.
> Also, Appendix 1 to LC-PCC PS for has conflicting examples, since
> the second example below does include the language of the original
> expression in the access point:
> 730 02  $a To live and die in L.A.
> 730 02  $a To live and die in L.A. $l French.
> 730 02  $a To live and die in L.A. $l Spanish.
> Original in English, dubbed in French and Spanish
> 730 02  $a Shichinin no samurai. $l English
> 730 02  $a Shichinin no samurai. $l Japanese.
> Subtitled version of a motion picture released under a different title
> --Adam
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On Fri, 31 May 2013, Cristan, Ana Lupe wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Earlier there was a discussion on the RDA-list about NAR n 79084797 that
> was changed incorrectly.  I responded to that list but in reality this is
> the audience I need to address.  This is to remind catalogers not to reuse
> LCCNs and how to untangle NARs with subfield $l that contain an ampersand.
> > In July of 2012 PSD issued guidelines describing the changes made in
> > Phase 1 and provided guidance for the handling of NARs that had the
> > 667 note added to it.  This document is at:
> >
> >
> >
> > See page 4, number 3 that states:
> >
> > "...AACR2 authority record with an ampersand in $l will be labeled with
> a 667 field as needing review under RDA (about 13,000 authority records).
> > What an RDA cataloger should do: If an authority record with an
> ampersand in $l is encountered, create substitute RDA records for each
> language expression represented in $l if they don't already exist (they
> often will) and report the authority record with the ampersand for
> deletion. Do not use 're-use' the authority record with an ampersand for a
> single language expression...."
> >
> > In  October of 2012 - Dave Reser created a PowerPoint with more detail
> and this was added to the suite of documents in the table of  Library of
> Congress RDA Training Materials -  labeled Special topics.  This PowerPoint
> called Changes to the LC/NACO Authority File<
> also describes the changes made to the LC/NAF as a result of Phase 1 and
> provides guidance as to what to do in each situation when a NAR with a 667
> note is encountered (specifically ppt slides 19 and 20 talk about uniform
> title NARs with either polyglot or with the ampersand).
> >
> > Please take the time to review these documents.  I will delete n
> 79084797 and create a new NAR for the English expression and will add the
> deprecated LCCN in a subfield $z.
> > Thanks,
> > Ana Lupe Crist?n
> > Library of Congress
> > Policy and Standards Division
> > 101 Independence Ave.
> > Washington, DC 20540-4305
> > Tel. +1.202.707.7921
> > fax +1.202.707.6629
> > Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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