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

 

[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:3357130027_2179763">

101 Independence Avenue, SE

Room LM 119C
Washington, DC  20540-9420
Desk: 202-707-0013
Email: [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]] 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]] 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




--
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