Hi Ian,

“Works. Selections” is a conventional collective preferred title for an incomplete compilation of works by one creator not in a single form such as Plays, Poems, etc. In RDA, this is an alternative to recording the preferred titles of all the individual works. Under the attached LC-PCC PS, LC practice is to follow this alternative, but PCC practice is not specified. When constructing access points for works additions to access points are made as needed to differentiate, using one of the options under Conventional collective titles are not expressly treated as an exception here, nor under the associated LC-PCC PS I think your analogy to expressions holds, but I can’t find an explicit statement of LC policy/practice such that “Creator. Works. Selections” is not given further qualification and might represent more than one such aggregate work. Their training powerpoint on Compilations (updated August 2013) might clarify: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html

The Access Points for Expressions task group treated titles and access points for works (including the above) as out of scope. That said, there may be particular expressions of such aggregate works, in different languages, content types, etc., at which point 6.27.3 comes into play by adding expression-specific elements (as constrained by LC practice or not) to the access point for the aggregate work (which may or may not contain its own qualifying elements).

Paul Frank mentioned recently in a message to PCC-List on October 2 that "There is still a need for the issues and recommendations raised by the PCC Task Group on Expressions to be formalized and incorporated officially into PCC documentation. I will raise this issue with the PCC Policy Committee."
In the meantime, whatever LC’s practice is, as I understand it, PCC members generally have the option to apply access points for works and expressions when LC would not, and at a greater level of differentiation than LC would require. Per the DCM-Z1 introduction, NACO members may contribute authority records for works and expressions “as needed for cataloging” even when LC would not. BIBCO/CONSER members must support all access points in PCC-authenticated records with authority records.


On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
PCCLIST readers,

This message follows up on my previous one dated October 12 (no responses received, but never mind!)  in which I discussed whether "Works. Selections" represents a "work" entity or an "expression" entity.  Perhaps the answer depends on the context, which as I see it is:

•       According to LC policy "Works. Selections" is used without further qualification to represent both work and expression, except where differentiation is required.

•       According to PCC policy, contributors of name authority records for compilations can follow LC policy but have the option of providing further qualifying information.

If such statements are incorrect please advise.  Meanwhile here's what appears to be support for these assertions.

LC-PCC PS for 6.27.3 "Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression" has:

LC practice:  ... When identifying an expression not already represented by a name authority record, do not add another characteristic to differentiate one such expression from another expression. ...

PCC practice: Pending outcome of report/recommendations from the PCC Access Point for Expressions Task Group.

That report (submitted to the PCC Policy Committee on October 15, 2012) is available here:
So the report is available, but apparently its outcome (if any) has not been incorporated into LC-PCC PS.

The report has (page 5): "... the current LCPS 6.27.3 instructs LC catalogers to construct access points for expressions in specific situations and not to further differentiate upon those situations. Thus, an access point for an expression such as “Name. Title. Language” may represent more than one expression."  By analogy, "Work. Selections" might represent more than one expression.

Page 9 has this recommendation.

6.27.3 Authorized access points for expressions. Follow the LC practice for situations when access points for expressions in bibliographic records are required, and creating and using authority records for such access points are required; use cataloger’s judgment on exercising the optional use of additional elements to further differentiate upon the access point when considered useful for distinctive expressions. When doing so, follow LC-PCCPS practice in formulating these access point elements.

The operational phrase appears to be "optional use of additional elements".  Beyond this, I don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps someone can comment further.  One final note: my question is about formulation of access points, not about creation of authority records.

Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University Libraries
[log in to unmask]

Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 212-851-2451