This discussion needs to be more about the way standards define units of information and the purposes they're put to and less about punctuation. 

ISBD 1.3.2 on Other title information says, "Additional other title information is included if it is necessary for identification or otherwise considered important to users of the catalogue." In other words, ISBD includes information which may be "necessary for identification" as part of other title information, while RDA bases the "identifying" title for access on title proper plus prescribed qualifiers.

ISBD units of description are based on how the information appears. The fact that information necessary to identification falls outside the title proper so defined is not a concern, as long as it's included elsewhere in the ISBD description.  ISBD is not prescribing access points.

Adopting the ISBD notion of title proper in RDA and defining title proper as the basis of access points means building access points on titles that are not distinct. The question should not be how to pack other title information into the title proper, but how to include identifying other title information as part of an RDA authorized access point--as qualifying information added to the title proper--when it's needed and useful for identification.

This would mean that a 245 transcription and a 130 access point for the same title--one describing the manifestation and the other naming the work-- could differ, and we'd need to put both in the record. 

130  0 $a Star trek, the next generation (History and episode list of the TV show)
245 10 $a Star trek, the next generation : $b a history and episode list of the TV show 

When a resource lacks necessary identifying information, ISBD, Incomplete or ambiguous titles, recommends supplying it as bracketed other title information.  That seems like a compatible parallel to adding a phrase from other title information in a distinguishing parenthetical qualifier to an RDA access point when the qualifying information is not part of the title proper.  Maybe the two standards are not quite as discrepant as they appear.

I'm not claiming that this is all sanctioned under current RDA and LC-PCC PSs, but the loose definitions of Other distinguishing characteristics of works in RDA 6.6.1 and MARC 381 and the LC-PCC PS for are all fairly open ended when it comes to distinguishing qualifiers for works.  The last mentions "descriptive data elements" as a possible qualifier terms, and Other title information is a descriptive data element. The above comes closer to satisfying both ISBD and RDA and usefully distinguishing works than shoehorning other title information into the title proper.


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Richard Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I've wished for a nice concise statement about series numbering appearing only in CIP/CIP-esque data, too, aÌ laÌ LCRI 1.6G, but since there doesn't seem to be anything in RDA or a PS that explicitly states this, I've been extrapolating LC-PCC PS "If the series statement appears only in pre-publication cataloging data (foreign or domestic) in the item, do not transcribe this information as a series statement" plus LC-PCC PS "Do not consider pre-publication cataloging data (foreign or domestic) appearing in the item as a source of information for transcribed elements" to equal "Ignore the series numbering if it only appears in CIP or something CIP-ish."


Rich Murray
Catalog Librarian for Spanish & Portuguese Languages and Rare Books
Duke University Libraries
Durham, North Carolina, USA
[log in to unmask]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yan Liao
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:07 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Need help with a series title
>Mark, thanks a lot. The links you provided below do cover the series
>statement. In my original post, one of the question is regarding to the
>numbering of the series. In the case that I have, the CIP shows the
>numbering as 1, which doesn't show up in other places. Based on RDA:
>8012#rda2-8012 , it doesn't conveniently lead to CIP data cannot be used
>as good source. Thus, I wonder whether that part can also be added to
>the source of info for the numbering of series.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
>Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:42 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Need help with a series title
>From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yan Liao
>>  (As Stephen mentioned, CIP data may not be a good source of info. I
>> agree,
>> BTW: should the doubt about using CIP data as source info be added to
>> the LC-PCC document? It's not clear for now based on the current rule)
>Is this what you're looking for?

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