Print

Print


The case of undifferentiated persons is a red herring. The notion of
undifferentiated persons  never made sense except as a awkward expediency.
Two persons with the same name have nothing in common except the name and
are not at all interchangeable for someone searching for a particular
person.  On the other hand, two translated versions of the same work have a
great deal in common, and often are interchangeable for the user seeking a
translation in a given language.

RDA and FRBR do recognize abstract entities. The work is clearly an
abstract entity.  The argument made here is that the notion of expression
embraces a range of entity concepts, some more abstract and some more
specified.  FRBR 3.2.2, Expression, says, "On a practical level, the degree
to which bibliographic distinctions are made between variant expressions of
a work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on
the anticipated needs of users. ...  Variations that would be evident only
from a more detailed analysis and comparison of expressions (e.g.,
variations between several of the early texts of Shakespeare's Hamlet)
would normally be reflected in the data only if the nature or stature of
the work warranted such analysis, and only if it was anticipated that the
distinction would be important to users."  FRBR can thus be read as
allowing for different decisions about how much distinction among
expressions is needed to serve the needs of users.  As one of the
inspirations for RDA,  FRBR concepts may yet help guide RDA and its
implementers in further refinement of its instructions.

As Mary Charles Lasater noted, a decision to assign a minimum number of
qualfiers to an AAP for a highly specified entity can have negative
consequences in a cataloging environment where string matching algorithms
are still heavily used to drive authorization.  Bob Maxwell is correct,
that's all RDA requires; but the PCC Access Points for Expressions Task
Group recommends including more than the minimum number of qualifiers in
such cases.  That ensures both greater clarity about what the AAP signifies
and less chance of a negative impact on legacy data and unwary new input.

I agree with Bob Maxwell's analysis of what RDA currently expects, and with
his argument about the value of creating more specific identified entities;
but given the current environment where much legacy data has less specified
expression AAPs and where libraries can reasonably disagree about the need
for highly specified expression AAPs (as we do about the need to trace
series, or to add subject terms from a given vocabulary), I'd like to see a
better accommodation for mixed practice in this area in the LC/PCC
community.

Stephen

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  I’d like to reinforce a point that Adam made earlier (and I implied in
> my response) about the records being discussed in this thread.
>
>
>
> The only category of undifferentiated descriptions allowed in RDA is for
> *persons* (see 8.11) and PCC has disallowed even that. RDA does not
> recognize a “generic” or “undifferentiated” category of expression
> description, and for good reason. Undifferentiated descriptions cannot work
> in the entity-relationship database structure that FRBR/RDA is based on (at
> least in my opinion), and toward which we are moving (at least I hope so).
> I understand the practical desire for such a category, but it needs to be
> understood that it is completely extra-RDA (and given that PCC has
> disallowed the category for persons even though there were very practical
> reasons for that, too, I’m not sure I understand the urge to create a new
> category of undifferentiated entity descriptions for expressions).
>
>
>
> So, because RDA doesn’t recognize any other category, RDA’s instructions
> at 6.27.3 for creating an authorized access point for an expression assumes
> that the authorized access point is for a *specific* expression. 6.27.3
> says to begin with the authorized access point for the work and then to add
> one or more elements (content type, date, language, or other distinguishing
> characteristic) as needed to identify the expression. No priority is given
> for which element to add, but as many may be added as needed to
> differentiate the expression entity being described from other expression
> entities related to the same work. So, if (for example) addition of the
> language alone is sufficient to differentiate the expression described from
> all other expressions, that’s all that’s needed (though further additions
> are not forbidden). The fact that you haven’t added anything more than the
> language does *not* mean that the description is for a “generic”
> expression (which, again, RDA doesn’t recognize). That is, you can’t
> recognize an authority record for a “generic” expression vs. a “specific”
> expression simply by noticing that only language has been added to the
> authorized access point.
>
>
>
> I created a record for *the* Spanish expression of J.G. Ballard’s novel *Unlimited
> dream company* this morning (no2014131000). There is only one Spanish
> expression, a translation by Enrique Pezzoni and Marcial Souto first
> published in 1990. I created the authorized access point by adding
> “Spanish” after the authorized access point for the work. I did not add
> anything more because that addition under 6.27.3 was sufficient to
> distinguish this expression from all other expressions of this work. This
> description (NAR no2014131000) was *not* intended to be a “generic”
> expression record/authorized access point. It very definitely applies to
> this expression and this only (which happens at the moment to be the only
> Spanish expression). It *does*, appropriately, contain things like the
> 046 field for the date of expression, even though similarly to the records
> that initiated this discussion, the only thing added to the authorized
> access point was the language.
>
>
>
> This is also my practice when I encounter an existing authority record for
> an expression when (a) only language has been added to the authorized
> access point form for the work *and* (b) I discover that it is the only
> expression in that language. I record elements in the record pertinent to
> the expression (e.g., date of expression, language, other characteristic,
> relationship to translator or editor, etc.). If there is only one
> expression in the language the question of whether the original record
> represented a “generic” or “specific” expression is moot—it *is*
> “specific” (to say nothing of the earlier point about RDA not recognizing
> the former category anyway). If on the other hand I discover that there are
> in fact other expressions in the same language, I will add a new record to
> the file for the expression(s) I need.
>
>
>
> LC has now removed the dates from the records in question, apparently
> intending to convert them back into “generic” descriptions. LC can of
> course appropriately revise or remove changes that they themselves made
> earlier, but given that the records apparently represented the only
> expressions in the languages in question, I’d maintain that this action
> didn’t actually convert the record “back into a generic” record. The record
> already stands for a specific expression, the only one in the language
> described.
>
>
>
> Making authority descriptions as specific as possible by adding RDA
> elements (and incidentally, for the case of expressions, clarifying that a
> record represents a specific expression) is not straightening deck chairs,
> in my opinion. It is absolutely crucial to the future usefulness of the
> database and the ability to integrate our current records into the future
> ER environment (which I believe is possible, but only if we prepare the
> data).
>
>
>
> 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 *Frank, Paul
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:12 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Date of expression in DLC authority records?
>
>
>
> Everyone,
>
>
>
> The dates in these expression records were added to the 046 field early in
> 2013, before the May 2013 update to LC-PCC PS 6.27.3.
>
>
>
> Mark, Bob, and Adam—your analysis was correct, but we will err on the
> side of caution and do as Stephen suggests.
>
>
>
> So, after discussion with colleagues in the Policy and Standards
> Division, the dates in the 046 fields of these expression records have been
> removed, so that the authorized access points now represent “generic”
> expressions of the English translations.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Matthew C. Haugen
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:54 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Date of expression in DLC authority records?
>
>
>
> As the chair of the PCC Access Points for Expressions Task Group, I think
> Stephen has characterized our recommendations correctly. Though the Policy
> Committee accepted the report in early 2013, our recommendations were
> rather preliminary, and nearly two years later, I'm still at a loss for
> more specific solutions.
>
>
>
> At the time, we were wary of defining a "super-expression" category to
> enshrine collective or generic expression AAPs, but acknowledging that the
> co-existence of undifferentiated and differentiated work/expression NARs is
> somewhat inevitable, and not wishing to require or forbid either, we
> recommended that 046/3xx fields NOT be separately encoded in
> work/expression NARs that do in fact represent multiple expressions or
> could potentially do so in the future; more simply put, that separate
> 046/3xx elements generally not be recorded unless the same data is also an
> element in the access point. For elements used as part of a work/expression
> access point, we recommended encoding that information in separate fields
> as well, following general best practices for use of controlled
> vocabularies, standardized dates, language codes, etc.
>
>
>
> In the case Adam describes regarding a single expression, a date in 046
> but not in the access point can reflect a single expression at the time it
> was created; this would preclude its being used as a generic record,
> however, in the event that another expression comes along, which may or may
> not be the intent.
>
>
>
> I would assume, that, as is the practice for undifferentiated personal
> name records, any action taken to differentiate an expression currently
> represented on a generic record is best done by creating a new record for
> that expression, rather than reusing an existing expression record by
> changing its level of differentiation.  So I agree with Stephen's
> reluctance to add a date to the AAP to resolve ambiguity or conflict; I
> don't think this was the intent of the task group.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Bob's case against using dates in generic (or "generic") expression
> authorities makes sense, too, and agrees with the recommendation of the PCC
> Access Points for Expressions Task Group. There's still an ambiguity,
> though--when the title looks generic and the 046 contains a specific date,
> which data element determines the AAP's intended scope? Does the AAP look
> generic? Page 9 of the task group report comments, "Usually, then, these
> special fields [e.g., 046] would only apply when those same elements are
> also included as additions to the access point."  So maybe these are cases
> where the 046 was applied in error and the generic intent of the record is
> more evident from the AAP.
>
>
>
> In practical terms, given that the authorities have been posted for some
> time and may have been used to control bib AAPs, I'd be reluctant to
> resolve the ambiguity in the authorities by adding a date (per the task
> group recommendation) to the AAP, since the unspecified AAP form may have
> been used generically to control other expressions.  It would be safer to
> remove the 046, let the existing authority stand as generic, and create a
> new authority with more thorough specificity if needed.
>
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> The presence of a recorded date of expression means the record is no
> longer a “generic” record covering all English language expressions of a
> given work. The record applies only to the expression that was created in
> that year (or first published in that year). Different expressions are
> created in different years, so by recording a specific year you are pinning
> the record down to a specific expression.
>
>
>
> Bizarrely, there is no evidence for the 046 date 1927 in n  85022980, but
> it does appear from an OCLC search that an English language expression of
> Rølvaag’s *I de dage* was indeed published in 1927, so this record would
> correspond to that particular expression, not another (perhaps there is
> only one English language expression of this work, but if there are more
> than one, n  85022980 can only apply to the expression first created in
> 1927).
>
>
>
> Randomly looking at a few of the other examples you give, most of them
> don’t seem to have any evidence for the 046 field data either.
>
>
>
> In my opinion if any expression-related attribute aside from language
> (377) is recorded in an authority record, that takes the record out of the
> realm of “generic” language expression and it becomes a record for a
> specific expression, the one that corresponds to whatever attributes have
> been recorded (in these cases, date of first creation of the expression).
> So my response to Mark’s question would be “No, these records should not be
> treated as describing a generic expression, they describe a specific
> expression.” But I have no idea what the LC catalogers were thinking when
> they enhanced these records with 046 fields.
>
>
>
> 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 *Mark K. Ehlert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Date of expression in DLC authority records?
>
>
>
> I've come across several authority records exclusively sourced and edited
> by DLC (per the 040 field) for English translations that include 046 dates
> that specify the date of expression.  The heading itself is generic
> following LC-PCC PS 6.27.3--Name. Title. English--but the record is made
> specific with that added date.  Many, but not all, of the records were last
> edited in February-March 2013, which point to the Phase 2 RDA Authorities
> project.  However, none of the 1xx/4xx headings use the $f, which I presume
> would be the source for the automated population of the 046 field.  Several
> 046s also don't match the source dates in the 670s; manual intervention is
> implied there.
>
>
>
> Random examples by LCCN:
> n  90636367
> no 97019257
> n  80148532
> n 2012079161
> n 2013001274
> n 2013037659
> n 2013062190
>
> So a question of practice for those of us who aren't LC: Should these
> records be treated as generic expression?  Or specific expression?  I
> presume the 046s aren't meant to act as the start date(!) for a collection
> of English expressions covered by a single record.  I have one translation
> record in front of me I'd like to edit, but don't know how to go about
> enhancing it, if at all (n  85022980, last touched in September 2013).
>
>
> --
>
> Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
> Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
> Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library
>   Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>
>   "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
> the swift course of time." -- Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen
>
> of Verona," Act I, scene iii
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>


-- 
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