Print

Print


[log in to unmask]">

Very interesting analysis, Robert.  I find it fairly convincing.  You would then consider each of those publisher versions to be Manifestations of the Expression Chronicles of Narnia.  That seems to make sense, since the “publisher series” often include different introductions, etc.  I do have a question, though.  It is appropriate that you used the Chronicles of Narnia as your example.

 

The Chronicles of Narnia have been published (in English), in two different sequences—numbered in publication order, and numbered in internal chronological order.  The sequence does make a difference in the reading experience, and many people prefer one sequence over the other.  Would you consider different sequencing to be different Expressions of the Work Chronicles of Narnia?  I realize that numbering is a fairly minor change in terms of publishing, but it does make the story flow differently.  Does this rise to the level of Expression, or is it just a choice in Manifestation?

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers

 

Steven wrote:

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.

Bob responds (alas, at great length :-)

 

We do record information about manifestations in all authority records. 670 fields in authority records of all kinds, for example, give information about manifestations. For whatever reason, however, RDA does not provide for authorized access points for manifestations. Perhaps it will eventually, but it doesn't now. Since an authority record requires an authorized access point, this means that we aren't creating authority records for manifestations. Even if RDA did provide for authorized access points for manifestations, given the FRBR hierarchy of the Group I entities, such an authorized access point would presumably be based on the authorized access point for the expression it depends on, just as the authorized access point for an expression is based on the authorized access point for the work it depends on. So, no matter what, we need to figure out whether these various authority records represent different expressions or not.

 

I assume we agree that these are all related to the same work by C.S. Lewis, that is, there's only one work "Chronicles of Narnia", right? So in RDA we begin by creating an authorized access point for this work, which is created by the combination of the authorized access point for the creator plus the preferred title of the work:

 

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia

 

Additions to this authorized access point might be qualifiers to differentiate between different works with the same creator and title (see RDA 6.27.1.9).  For example:

 

Sayers, Dorothy L. (Dorothy Leigh), 1893-1957. Busman's honeymoon (Novel)

vs.

Sayers, Dorothy L. (Dorothy Leigh), 1893-1957. Busman's honeymoon (Play)

 

These are different works. But I hope nobody will argue that there are more than one work by C.S. Lewis titled "Chronicles of Narnia." So if additions to the authorized access point "Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia" are not qualifiers to differentiate one work from another, then under RDA that means additions must represent aspects of an expression and are there to differentiate one expression from another (RDA 6.27.3).

 

What makes one expression different from another? According to FRBR (3.2.2), "Expression encompasses ... the specific words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. that result from the realization of a work in the form of a text ... The boundaries of the entity expression are defined, however, so as to exclude aspects of physical form, such as typeface and page layout, that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work as such." That is, for textual works, if the text remains the same then the expression does not change, even if taken up by a different publisher. According to the same paragraph in FRBR, augmentations such as illustrations, etc., are considered separate works so their presence or absence do not create a new expression of a particular text such as Chronicles of Narnia.

 

The many AACR2 authority records for Chronicles of Narnia were based on AACR2 and LC's series policies, not RDA, and so were based on a different organizing principle from FRBR's. That principle isn't better or worse, just different. We are now in an RDA environment in the NAF, so we need to think about the existing AACR2 authority records relative to that fact. My original point was that we need to evaluate the existing authority records and see if they in fact represent different expressions of the work Chronicles of Narnia. Some things to think about are: for text content type, are they the same text? I assume the English language versions are in fact the same text (an assumption catalogers should make unless there is a statement such as "revised edition" to the contrary--we aren't expected to do textual criticism and compare texts), so they should be described in a single authority record for that English language expression. So I suspect that

 

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (Collier Books (Firm))

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (HarperCollins (Firm))

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (HarperCollins (Firm) : 2000)

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (HarperTrophy (Firm))

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (Macmillan (Firm))

Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963. Chronicles of Narnia (Scholastic Inc.)

 

in fact represent the same English text and therefore should be described in a single expression-level record and there should only be one authorized access point for this expression. Continuing with the content type text, the translations are different expressions and do call for different descriptions. I see in the current authority file French, Polish, Spanish, and Russian translations. There are currently two authority records for Spanish translations. Are they the same or not? I can't tell from the AACR2 authority records.

 

The spoken word content type versions are also different expressions from the text versions. There are several AACR2 authority records for these. If they represent the same recording, then they're the same expression and should be described on a single description and have only one authorized access point. If they're different recordings (as at least some of them probably are), then they're different expressions and should be described on separate descriptions and have distinctive authorized access points. The current authority records need to be evaluated to determine this.

 

What does this do to our need to record information about series in these records? I believe we can accommodate these needs within the RDA/FRBR model but we need to step out of the box and think about how to do it (and perhaps we should reevaluate what those needs really are). I realize this does mean a paradigm shift for us. The fact that RDA works differently from AACR2 is not evidence that the FRBR model (followed by RDA) "doesn't work", e.g., for series (and I've heard the same argument about serials). It simply means it is different. The fact that we may be "including publisher information in RDA series authorities and applying those series authorities to the matching publisher's edition" doesn't mean that that has to be the way it's done. It just means that's how we're used to doing it. Given what I said above you won't be surprised to learn that I don't agree that we should be doing this in RDA authority records that describe series, that is, making separate records for the same expression just because the publisher is different. In my opinion, they're in fact the same series and we're artificially dividing them up in a way that isn't too beneficial to anybody. (I actually felt the same way under the AACR2 regime--we did this because of LC policy, not because AACR2 required it.)

 

Personally, I believe the FRBR model is an excellent model of our bibliographic universe and it is (or will be) extremely beneficial to the users of our database. It gives us a foundation to help us make decisions about things like "is this resource the same series as this other resource?" that really wasn't there under AACR2. In my opinion it is therefore counter-productive to try to reshape it so that it fits the way we did things under AACR2.

 

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: Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:47 PM
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Subject: RE: order of language and publisher qualifiers

 

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

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242