I'm interested in how conventional collective titles relate to genre/form information. It may make more sense in the long run to treat the type of information now given in conventional collective titles as genre/form information, recorded ideally in a work authority record. Conventional collective titles are a useful collocating device in an author/title catalogue, but they are not always well suited to characterizing FRBR works and expressions.
At least that's what I'd argue in cases like the ones under discussion, where literary compilations are published under distinctive titles. There may be other kinds of cases where conventional collective titles continue to serve a valuable purpose.
Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin LIbrary
Cornell University
[log in to unmask]
607 254 8031
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Variants on authority records with conventional collective titles
I completely agree with Kevin’s point that the title in the 100 field should not be: Poems. Selections, but: I take back the sponge cake.
To do otherwise is cataloging madness. It makes things more difficult for the library user in order to satisfy a misinterpreted rule. Please stop.
Gary Hough
Head, Information Resources Management Dept.
W.E.B. Du Bois Library
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: (413) 545-6856
email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Variants on authority records with conventional collective titles
Eek!! Looks to me to be totally in error. The 400 should be:
400 1# Erdrich, Loren. $t I take back the sponge cake
Although, as I have expressed earlier in some other thread, this is really (IMNSHO) a misunderstanding of RDA 6.2.2.10, which says: "If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5."
The actual title of the collection should be in the 100 field. "Poems. Selections" is useful as a variant title, but totally unnecessary for the purpose of identifying the work. (On the contrary—it helps to obscure the work!)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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 Finnerty, Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Variants on authority records with conventional collective titles
Hi everyone,
We ran across this authority record today with an interesting variant:
010 n 2012031573
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂe rda
1001 Erdrich, Loren. ǂt Poems. ǂk Selections
4001 Erdrich, Loren. ǂt Poems. ǂk I take back the sponge cake
670 I take back the sponge cake, 2012.
Should the real title of the work be in a $k like that? Or is this an error? If people are searching the catalog with the title as they know it (I take back the sponge cake), they won’t find it.
I know that you can be more free-form with variants in RDA so this might be okay, however, I haven’t seen this done on any other records of this ilk. This record, for instance, does not use the $t/$k in the variant:
010 n 2010075372
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂe rda
1001 Finch, Peter, ǂd 1947- ǂt Poems. ǂk Selections
4001 Finch, Peter, ǂd 1947- ǂt Zen Cymru
670 Zen Cymru, 2010, ©2010.
Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database Management & NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services Department
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | (858) 822-3138
