I read LC-PCC PS for 25.1 to mean that an analytical authorized access point should be made for a work that forms a PARTICULARLY substantial part of the resource, in comparison to the other works in the resource.
For example, a book that contains Paradise Lost and a bunch of poems by other authors that were inspired by Paradise Lost. In such a case I would certainly want to include an analytical AAP for Paradise Lost.
On the other hand, if I have a compilation of 20 short stories, none of which stands out particularly, I don’t think any work in the collection represents a “substantial part of the resource.” I don’t see why an AAP should be added for the story that happens to be first in the sequence. There is no reason to assume, without more information, that such placement indicates importance. To me, LC-PCC PS for 25.1 justifies NOT making an AAP for a work that just happens to be the first. To do so seems to me silly and arbitrary. Of course, making AAPs for ALL the stories would certainly have value. Like that’s going to happen!
Perhaps the two most important words in RDA: "cataloger judgment".
One could argue this ad absurdum. For example: one could argue, I suppose, that a compilation containing Milton's Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Lycidas is a 'poetry anthology' and thus an exception. But does it really serve any purpose to not provide access to at least the first (both the first in the collection and by far the predominant)? I'd even argue, in fact, that even Lycidas is 'substantial' and deserves an access point -- but that's my personal opinion (which I suspect Bob might share), and others can differ. And that is exactly the point. "Substantial" is not defined, and I think that’s a good thing (neither is "burdensome").
Timothy J. Carlton
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
Usual disclaimers apply
LCPS 25.1 includes the sentence “Generally, do not apply this core element to anthologies of poetry, hymnals, conference proceedings, journals, collections of interviews or letters, and similar resources.” I believe that a collections of articles are similar to conference proceedings and journals, and that this PS is really intended for compilations of novels, stories and plays. I searched LC’s catalog for recent books with uniform titles such as “Short stories. Selections” and found a wide range of practice, probably depending on part on judgment of what is a “substantial part of the resource.” Some collections had one or more analytical added entry, some didn’t. Please, let’s don’t ask for some ruling on what is “substantial,” but be happy that this PS gives us the opportunity to highlight significant parts of a collection, but lets us decide what is significant. Neither the patrons nor the cataloging police are going around saying “oh, look, this short story is 10% of the book and didn’t get an analytical added entry.”
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Ann: My question is: What constitutes a “substantial part of the resource?” I was interpreting substantial to mean the first work or article other than prefaces, introductions, etc. So, in compilations that consist of, perhaps, 20 articles by different authors which are 10-20 pages each, I was providing a 700 12 authorized access point for the author-title of the first article. I have noticed, however, that no other PCC contributing library seems to be providing author-title tracings in cases like this. Therefore, I am wondering whether I interpreted this LC-PCC PS correctly.
Ann, I think you have interpreted the PS correctly. I suspect the reason you haven’t seen examples is that people aren’t yet aware of this section of the BSR or the PS. I’m glad you’ve drawn attention to it and reminded us. Note: I’m in favor of adding access points for all the “substantial” parts, not just the first, if the number is reasonable, but that’s optional. There’s no particular reason to favor just the first, except as a way of defining a minimum.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
I would like clarification on the following section of the BIBCO Standard Record. Under Related Works (page 16 of PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record Metadata Application Profile, Jan. 01, 2013 revision), in the notes, it states “Give an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work in the compilation.” It also refers you to RDA no. 25.1.
Under the LC-PCC PS for RDA 25.1, it states “For compilations of works, give an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work in the compilation when it represents a substantial part of the resource. Disregard contributions such as a preface or introductory chapter.”
My question is: What constitutes a “substantial part of the resource?” I was interpreting substantial to mean the first work or article other than prefaces, introductions, etc. So, in compilations that consist of, perhaps, 20 articles by different authors which are 10-20 pages each, I was providing a 700 12 authorized access point for the author-title of the first article. I have noticed, however, that no other PCC contributing library seems to be providing author-title tracings in cases like this. Therefore, I am wondering whether I interpreted this LC-PCC PS correctly.
Please see OCLC #812067100 for an example. The title of the book is Oxidative stress and redox regulation. It has 16 articles by different authors. My question is is it a BIBCO requirement to provide an authorized access point for the first article “Chemistry of thiol oxidation and detection?” We did not enhance this record to BIBCO level, primarily because we did not want to have to create an authority record for this 700 12 author-title tracing. But if we did enhance it to BIBCO level, would we be required to provide this 700 12 access point? And establish it? Or would these sorts of articles not be considered “substantial,” and, therefore, an author-title tracing would not be required?
Also, in the BSR, this section (Related Works) has an “R” meaning it is a recommendation. So is this tracing just a recommendation, or is it a requirement on a BIBCO level record? Or, is the “recommendation” referring to providing a contents note? While providing the access point is a “requirement?”
Coordinator, Digital and Monographic Resources
Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Texas Libraries
The University of Texas at Austin