Works and expressions are basic building blocks of FRBR, so I was actually very glad to see the training slides make a serious attempt to come to grips with them. But, as Amy points out, the practical difficulties are daunting. Some of
the same issues with differentiating entities arise here as with names, as discussed in the recent PCC report on non-MARC name authorities, but the scale of the problem is potentially much greater. In addition, we don’t have a consensus about what kinds of
expressions we want to identify or how to do so.
It’s worth noting that work and expression AAPs don’t just serve as collocating devices in 130s and 240s. Because they are supposed to *identify* works and expressions, they should also allow us – at least in principle – to *reference*
them. Thus, for example, in a record for a study guide designed to accompany the fifth (and no other) edition of a textbook, we ought to be able to reference the textbook through an expression AAP like this one:
700 1# $i Guide to (expression): $a Purves, William K., $d 1934- $t Life, the science of biology. $s Fifth edition.
We still seem to be some way short of having a well understood and broadly accepted set of practices for doing this kind of thing.
Naun.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Training Materials on CLW page
Thanks for this very thoughtful email. At Duke, we have very similar concerns.
In particular, I would like to echo the belief that RDA does not call for use of conventional collective titles as they are being applied at the Library of Congress. If it did require such a practice, I think
that we should lobby for a change. Does anyone think that patrons are going to come to the catalog looking for something like what we find on slides 119ff?:
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (Selected short stories)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (Supernatural short stories of Charles Dickens)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (Christmas stories)
Or
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (Thomas)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (Hayes)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections (University Society)
Or
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections. 1976
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections. 2010
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Short stories. Selections. 1908
The fact that it is not clear which elements should be used to distinguish CCTs for different works demonstrates how un-intuitive these constructions are.
Additions to titles to works are similarly un-intuitive (slides 109f). I can see some theoretical usefulness in the rare case of an author using the same title for works in different genres:
Gale, Zona, 1874-1938. Miss Lulu Bett (Novel)
Gale, Zona, 1874-1938.
Miss Lulu Bett (Play)
However, I believe it is very ill-advised to try to distinguish between works entered under title that have the same title as other works or other entities.
130 0_ Philippines (Folk songs)
245 10 Philippines : $b musique des hautes-terres palawan.
264 _1 [France] : $b Chant du monde, $c [1987]
300 1 audio disc ; $c 12 in.
If we were to retroactively apply this rule to Duke’s catalog, we would need to page through 47 title entries for “Philippines”, eliminate those entered under author and qualify three of them, perhaps like this:
Philippines (Book : United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Regional and Country Studies Branch)
Philippines (Book : United States. Agency for International Development)
Philippines (Serial)
The work of doing this for just cases where title equals place name would be incredible, and many of the resulting lists would be much longer. Even without trying to apply the rule retrospectively, searching
for conflicts and adding qualifiers whenever we encounter what used to be called a main-entry-under-title would significantly add to cataloging time. And what would be the benefit? RDA is supposed to meet users’ needs, and somehow it has been decided that
users need a distinctive access points for each and every work and expression. I don’t think that this assumption lives up to scrutiny. Past cataloging rules have helped users find the specific works sought without requiring artificial constructions to
identify them.
Amy
Amy Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chiat Naun Chew
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Training Materials on CLW page
Paul,
We’ve been catching up with the Module 6 training materials that you circulated back in July. We’re very grateful to the task group for the careful thought that went into preparing this module. The slides have been invaluable not only
for training but also for helping us to think through the issues. But as the task group also points out, there are important questions in this area that have yet to be resolved. Here are some questions and observations that struck us as we studied the slides.
Please excuse the length of this post, but then it is a response to a 160-slide presentation! In case our notes don’t come through cleanly via email, a Word copy may be found here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B12U92oUTUTyVXdsTlZRTmNOT1U/edit?usp=sharing
Slide 8 When do you have to create an authority record?
·
The speaker’s notes remind us that “BIBCO requires all access points in a BSR (BIBCO Standard Record) to be supported by authority records”. Given the impact that the practices outlined in this module are likely to have on workload,
we suggest that PCC review this requirement as it applies to work and expression AAPs.
Slide 38 Compilations of Works by One Person, Family, or Corporate Body (RDA 6.2.2.10); Slide 119ff Conventional Collective Titles
·
Slide 38 says, “Use the following instructions for conventional collective titles
only if the compilation is not known by a title of its own”. But the examples and instructions in slides 119ff do not appear to be consistent with this instruction. As noted in a message to PCCLIST on August 20, we don’t think RDA in fact calls for
the use of CCTs in the examples given. (http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1308&L=pcclist&T=0&P=11620)
Slide 51 Variant title(s) for Work (RDA 6.2.3) and Slide 153 Variant Access Point for an Expression (RDA 6.27.4.5)
·
If a conventional collective title must indeed be used in place of the title a work or expression is actually known by, should not the actual title be given routinely as a variant?
Slides 58 Form of Work (RDA 6.3) and 68 (RDA 6.6) Other Distinguishing Characteristic of a Work
·
Given that Form of Work is defined in RDA only as “a class or genre to which a work belongs”, is there a reason (other than inference from the examples in RDA) for recording qualified genre/form terms
in 381 rather than in 380?
·
When should an associated body or group be named in 373 and when in 510?
Slides 75ff RDA and LC Practice
·
One important category of expressions strikes us as being in need of more detailed treatment: different editions of the same work. Although RDA generally treats edition statements as manifestation information, it’s clear that
revising an existing edition of a work can (and typically does) give rise to a new expression. RDA 6.27.1.5 on adaptations and revisions says, “If the work is presented simply as an edition of the previously existing work, treat it as an expression of that
work”, and follows with an instruction to construct an expression AAP, if desired, following 6.27.3. But neither the training material nor RDA itself gives specific guidance on how (or perhaps more importantly, when) to construct a distinct expression AAP
in such cases.
Slides 109ff Additions to Authorized Access Points for Works; Slides 143ff Authorized Access Points for Expressions (RDA 6.27.3)
·
Slide 109 defines conflicts as being in whichever catalogue you happen to be looking in. Within the LCC/PCC community, we think it would be preferable to instruct cataloguers explicitly to search for conflicts in the shared catalogue
(i.e. WorldCat). That is the only way to avoid (rather than merely defer) conflicts, and it is clearly a precondition for authority work in NACO.
·
Slide 109 also says, “Do not predict conflicts”. Nevertheless we think it will be prudent in many cases to make additions that go beyond what is strictly needed to break an immediate conflict. For example, qualifying a 130 so
that it reads “Paris (Map)” will work to resolve a conflict only the first time. Thereafter it is unhelpful, even for a modest collection of maps. More detailed guidance on additions would be appreciated.
·
Slide 113 tells us that an access point for a work needs to be distinguished from one that represents a person, family, corporate body, or place. Presumably the reverse also holds. These requirements seem onerous. There may be
a case here for taking tagging into account in determining conflicts.
·
Slide 116 says there is no priority order for additions. This is problematical since without some priority order conflicts are going to be very difficult to identify for some kinds of titles. For example, a uniform title search
in WorldCat on “Paris” currently retrieves over 15,000 hits.
·
Clarification on subfielding and punctuation of dates in AAPs for works and expressions is urgently needed.
o
For works, slide 116 says not to add any subfielding before the qualifier, but it is not clear whether this instruction applies to all work AAPs or only the title style AAPs used to illustrate slide 116. No instructions are explicitly
given on punctuation, although the title AAP examples in Slide 116 use parentheses and the author/title AAP examples in slide 125 use a period.
o
For expressions, slide 146 says to give date of expression in $f and precede it with a period, while giving most other distinguishing characteristics in $s and within parentheses. However, these instructions are given only in
the context of translations, and it is not explicitly stated if they are intended to apply to all expression AAPs.
It would be helpful if a full range of examples could be given with full MARC coding, covering both 130s and 100/240s and making it explicit what subfielding and punctuation to use for works and expressions respectively.
It should not be ambiguous whether an AAP qualified by a date represents a work or an expression (LC practice for original language expressions nothwithstanding).
It is also not clear how the instructions in the slides relate to E.1.2, particularly E.1.2.5 which says, “Enclose a word, phrase, date, or other designation used for conflict resolution in parentheses”. The status
of E.1.2 itself is unclear. E.1.2.1 says, “The instructions at E.1.2.2–E.1.2.5 reflect the punctuation for access points derived from AACR2 rules and
examples”.
Slide 128 Additions to Authorized Access Points for Works: Conventional Collective Titles
·
This slide states that different compilations of a single author’s complete works are to be treated as different aggregate works. However, the examples under RDA 6.27.3 imply that they should be regarded as expressions of the
same aggregate work. Clarification of this point would be helpful.
--
Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
(607) 254 8031
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Frank, Paul
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] NACO Training Materials on CLW page
Hi everyone,
I am happy to announce the posting of the new NACO Training Materials on the Cataloger's Learning Workshop page:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/index.html
These are the instructor Power Point presentations and trainee authority worksheets.
The training modules were created and tested by the
RDA NACO Program Training Workshop Task Group, under the chairmanship of Lori Robare, University of Oregon. The members of the task group were Michael Colby (University of California--Davis),
Joanna Dyla (Stanford University), Fang Gao (Government Printing Office), Robert Maxwell (Brigham Young University), Mark Scharff (Washington University), and Adam Schiff (University of Washington).
The Task Group recommends that the training materials be released in a soft launch to allow for further feedback over the next few months and possible revision based on that feedback.
Please report any feedback on the training modules to
[log in to unmask].
Paul
Paul Frank
Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs
Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4230
202-707-1570