Print

Print


To Kevin Randall's questions--yes, I'd be happier if we had a controlled
form of the work/expression entry in all cases in addition to the form
found in 1XX/245. I like Bob Maxwell's suggestion that all work/expression
access points be managed as well-designated added entries. Getting systems
to create access points from the combination of 1XX/240 has been too much
of a struggle, whereas they handle 7XXs pretty well.  Since there's no
coding to support distinguishing a work/expression title from a transcribed
manifestation title in 245 $a/n/p, there's no way a computer can select
from 245s only those titles that should be indexed at the work/expression
level.

Ultimately we'll want a separate description for the work or expression
which could be linked to the added entry structure in the manifestation
description. That would provide more complete information about
works/expressions than our records currently do, more flexible control over
the text form of these access points, and ideally provide it a shared space
so that the work of describing the work/expression would only need to be
done once (per set of cataloging conventions) and would not need to be
duplicated (e.g., think subject access) when describing each manifestation.

As for getting rid of 1XXs--the 1XX is doing several things. In addition to
generating a name access point, it is also used by some applications to
harvest citation data specific to the manifestation. We'd need to account
for that somehow, or  accept that our 1XX-less records are poor sources for
harvesting citation data (not that they're ideal sources now by any means).

I was asked privately if separate work/expression/manifestion access points
are needed for discovery. Discovery is a many splendored thing. When I'm
examining the extent of a library's holdings for a prolific author or major
composer, having good, designated work level access under the creator name
can simplify the review of a result set significantly. The works can be
listed in a compressed index and decompressed to show more detail about a
particular work's expressions and manifestations. Programming conditional
behaviors that would take the user directly to the manifestation layer when
the holdings are scarce would save that user's time without wasting my time
wading through lots of irrelevant manifestation data when I'm doing a more
comprehensive review of extensive holdings or looking for the holdings for
a particular work found in multiple manifestations.

Stephen


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Bartl, Joseph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Folks,****
>
> ** **
>
> I think that it is time we abandon the 1XX altogether, and the 240 as
> well.  How long will it take the metadata community to get past its
> knee-jerk negative response to reasonable suggestions like this and to
> realize that we are not creating card catalogs anymore?****
>
> ** **
>
> Joe****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Joe Bartl****
>
> Head, Music Bibliographic Access Section 1****
>
> Music Division****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:3357130027_2179763]****
>
> 101 Independence Avenue, SE****
>
> Room LM 119C
> Washington, DC  20540-9420
> Desk: 202-707-0013
> Email: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Kevin M Randall
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:02 AM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for
> multi-expression manifestations****
>
> ** **
>
> Stephen:  If that is your argument, then it would follow that *every* MARC
> RDA record we create should contain a 700-730 AAP for the work/expression,
> regardless of what is contained in the 1XX/24X.  And I maintain that this
> duplication *is* redundancy, and is pointless in our MARC-based systems.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin M. Randall****
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger****
>
> Northwestern University Library****
>
> [log in to unmask]****
>
> (847) 491-2939****
>
> ** **
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Stephen Hearn
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:17 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for
> multi-expression manifestations****
>
> ** **
>
> Duplication does not necessarily mean redundancy. My left front tire may
> be a total duplicate of my right front tire, but neither one of them is
> redundant, because they're doing different jobs. ****
>
> ** **
>
> An authorized access point for the Work/Expression contained in a resource
> is often different in form from the resource's 1XX/245, and is always
> different in purpose. The fact that practice has elided the expression of
> resource title and uniform title in the 245 when they're the "same" was
> always an efficiency that came with a great cost--the sorry state of
> Work/Expression authorized access points in most of our catalogs. If we had
> recognized early on that these are different data elements doing different
> jobs even when they happen to look the same, we'd be in much better shape
> now.****
>
> ** **
>
> Stephen****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:****
>
> I see I said “works” repeatedly in reference to the English and Spanish
> versions of the novel.  I should of course have said “expressions.”  Sorry
> about that.  There are in fact two expressions.  6.27.3 is related to
> creating authorized access points for them.  It would seem that at least
> one AAP must go in a 700 field, since we no longer use 240’s with multiple
> language qualifiers.  But while I remember PCC training as saying that BOTH
> expressions go in 700 name/title entries, Kevin Randall and John Marr have
> disputed that approach.  If the whole problem is that I’m remembering the
> training wrong, I’ll be happy to be told, but Kevin appeared to confirm
> implicitly that that was PCC’s stance.   ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Hostage
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:17 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for
> multi-expression manifestations****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m puzzled by it too, but I think in this case there is only one work,
> although in 2 expressions.  As such, the authorized access point for the
> work is provided according to 6.27.1.2.  It still doesn’t make sense to
> have an equivalent 700 field.****
>
>  ****
>
> If there were actually 2 works, then the preferred title might be “Novels.
> Selections” (6.2.2.10.3).****
>
>  ****
>
> ------------------------------------------****
>
> John Hostage ****
>
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //****
>
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //****
>
> Langdell Hall 194 //****
>
> Cambridge, MA 02138 ****
>
> [log in to unmask] ****
>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) ****
>
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Wilson, Pete
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 17:38
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for
> multi-expression manifestations****
>
>  ****
>
> I’m puzzled about something.****
>
>  ****
>
> Say you’ve got a book that is a bilingual edition of a creative work.****
>
>  ****
>
> 245:  :  Intruder in the dust = $b Intruso en el polvo / $c William
> Faulkner.****
>
>  ****
>
> As I understand it, we are to create two name-title entries—for example:**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust.****
>
> 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust. $l
> Spanish.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now, given that we have authorized access points for each of the two works
> in this manifestation, do we also make a 100 field for Faulkner?  If so,
> why? ****
>
>  ****
>
> I am not sure I can see where RDA either requires or allows us to make a
> creator access point that relates to a manifestation, as the 100 would
> here, since what the 245 holds is the manifestation title (though it
> happens to be the same as the preferred title of one of the two works.  It
> wouldn’t always be).  It would seem that the 700 $a subfields have covered
> the creator of the works (doing the job previously done by the 100 of the
> 100/240 “Spanish & English” combination we used to make).****
>
>  ****
>
> Help me out here, please.  Thanks!****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> 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****
>



-- 
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