Print

Print


I puzzled by the statement that "we currently don't create authorized access points for manifestations." We certainly are including publisher information in RDA series authorities and applying those series authorities to the matching publisher's edition. 

Is the point that this included information is intended to be only historical, and NOT descriptive of the resources to which the AAP is applied?  In the Narnia case, should all the English language multipart editions be represented by a single series authority provided they all contain the same texts, regardless of whatever publisher might be specified in that authority?

Would a single numbering practice be applied to all publishers' editions? In the Narnia case, the numbering is a particular problem, since the series has been published with different numbering applied to the volumes (sometimes "The Lion, etc" is no. 1, sometimes it's no. 2; etc.). If the series AAP on the bib record includes the number from the piece, and one uses one AAP for all the editions with the same text, the same bib AAP + number could be applied to manifestations of different works.

One could argue that series authorities for multipart literary works represent a distinct aggregate work which contains the literary work but combines it with artwork, design, and editorial contributions specific to the series, and that it is this derived aggregate work which is specified in the series authority, not the literary work itself.  The publisher becomes a token for representing this larger nexus of distinguishing characteristics.  Is that an argument worth pursuing as a way of accounting for common practice in the context of RDA?

Stephen




On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In my opinion when adding expression related elements to the authorized access point for a work to create an authorized access point for an expression the language should come first. RDA 6.27.3 doesn’t specify and PCC hasn’t made any policy or given guidelines for the order of elements in an access point for an expression.

 

However, I do question whether all these Chronicles of Narnia series that were qualified by a publisher under AACR2 are in reality different expressions from each other. I would say some of them probably aren’t and perhaps we should look to consolidate some of them. If the text is the same and the content type is the same they’re the same expression even if published by a different publisher (that’s an attribute of the manifestation, and we currently don’t create authorized access points for manifestations). I realize some of them have numbering differences, but numbering isn’t an attribute that gives rise to different expressions either (it’s also a manifestation attribute, see RDA 2.12.9).

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"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.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: order of language and publisher qualifiers

 

I need to create another series authority for a translated multi-part edition of Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Looking at the ones already established (none in RDA), I see a number of series authorities where the title is followed directly by a language (e.g., Lewis ... $t Chronicles of Narnia. $l Spanish -- a series published by Rayo) and a number where the $t includes a publisher qualifier, followed by a language (e.g., Lewis ... $t Chronicles of Narnia (HarperCollins (Firm)). $l Spanish).

 

RDA 6.27.3 on authorized access points for expressions instructs us to combine "in this order":

 

a) AAP for the work

b) one or more terms from the following list:

   i) content type

   ii) date of expression

   iii) language of expression

      and/or

   iv) another distinguishing characteristic

 

It's not clear whether and how "in this order" applies to the list of terms i-iv).  Looking at the examples, "... Babar en famille. English. Spoken word" puts iii) language before i) content type, while all instances in the examples of iv) terms appear after i-iii) terms when present. That could be the result of cataloger's judgment applied without strict guidance from RDA on the order of terms i-iv).

 

Some guidance is supplied by the LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3: "Identify an expression in a language different from that of the original expression by adding the name of the language in subfield $l to the authorized access point for the work." Presumably "Lewis ... $t Chronicles of Narnia (HarperCollins (Firm))" would be considered an access point for an expression, not for a work; but note that that AAP has also been established (for one of HarperCollins English editions), and collocation of the series AAPs by publisher may have been intended.

 

Is the sequence of i-iv) terms meant to be prescriptive? Can or should a qualifier for publisher precede a qualifier for language in cases like this? If AAPs for some translated expressions of a work are qualified first by publisher and others first by language, is that a problem that needs correcting, or just a point on which catalogers' judgments may differ?

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen


--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242




--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242