Print

Print


But in that same example (bottom of page 23), the original work's AAP 
without the language attribute is called an expression:


*Example: Parallel text** <#_ftn1>*

100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $e author

245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.

246 31 $a Cartero

546 ## $a English and Spanish.

700 12 $i Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t 
Mail carrier.*

700 12 $i Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t 
Mail carrier. $l Spanish.*


------------------------------------------------------------------------

<#_ftnref1> Adapted from LC training materials developed by Les Hawkins 
and Hien Nguyen.


Mike


On 12/11/2015 4:16 PM, Yuji Tosaka wrote:
> According to the PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group Report below (page 23) as well as the current LC-PCC PS 6.27.3, the fist 700 field would not have a subfield $l. I remember that this LC-PCC PS was changed in the summer of 2012 so that the original language of expression is not recorded in the authorized access point.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Relat-Desig-TG-report.rtf
>
> --
> Yuji Tosaka
> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
> The College of New Jersey
> Ewing, NJ 08628-0718
> Phone: (609) 771-2156
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:48:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda authority records
>
> Thanks for clearing that up, Bob.  Everything you said here makes
> perfect sense, I think.
>
> So maybe this:
>
> 245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
> 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
> 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Mongolian.
>
> and this:
>
> 041 1# $a eng $a spa $h eng
> 100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $e author.
> 245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
> 246 31 $a Cartero
> 546 ## $a English and Spanish.
> 700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t
> Mail carrier. $l English
> 700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t
> Mail carrier. $l Spanish.
>
>
> I distinctly remember that there was more opposition to than support for
> this approach when it was being discussed either here or on the RDA list
> at some point after the Sept. 2012 LC RDA Training was released.  I
> wonder if there still is any opposition?
>
> Aloha,
> Mike
>
> Michael A. Chopey
> Catalog Librarian
> Hamilton 008
> University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
> Honolulu, HI  96822
>
> phone (808) 956-2753
> fax (808) 956-5968
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2015 2:27 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>> In RDA the only kind of description (including its accompanying
>> authorized access point) that can stand for more than one entity is
>> for the person entity (see 8.6, 8.11, and 9.19.1.1), and PCC has
>> disallowed that. And even in 8.6/8.11/9.19.1.1 allowance for
>> undifferentiation is only permitted within a single entity, not
>> between different entities. There is no justification in RDA for using
>> the same description (and access point) for a work and an expression,
>> which are different entities.
>>
>> Using the access point for the work to represent both the work and all
>> expressions in the original language is an AACR2 practice that did not
>> come forward into RDA because it just doesn’t work in the
>> FRBR/entity-relationship model which RDA is based on. AACR2’s practice
>> wasn’t necessarily bad, it was just based on a different model from
>> RDA. There has never as far as I know been a consensus that we should
>> revert to this AACR2 practice and in my opinion doing so would be a
>> big mistake. It is certainly possible for a cataloger to decide only
>> to give access to the work, but let’s not make the mistake of thinking
>> that that access point represents both a work and an expression in the
>> original language. I think this has been masked a bit by the earlier
>> practice (that is, earlier than the publication of the PCC guidelines
>> on use of relationship designators) of not necessarily using the
>> relationship designator with the work or expression authorized access
>> point, but the addition of the relationship designator in cases such
>> as this makes it perfectly clear what the authorized access point
>> represents (as was the intent of the relaitionship designator). There
>> is no relationship designator “Container of (work or expression)”
>> because no such relationship exists in the model, so we’re forced to
>> realize that the access point is either for the work or for an
>> expression, but not both.
>>
>> By the way it is certainly possible (and indeed it is not only
>> possible but appears to be expected) under RDA 6.27.3 to add the
>> original language to the authorized access point for the work in order
>> to construct an authorized access point representing “a particular
>> expression of a work”, and a large number RDA authorized access points
>> have been so established in the NAF.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Robert L. Maxwell
>> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
>> 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 *Michael Chopey
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 3:52 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
>> authority records
>>
>> Thanks, Bob. I remember some time ago there was a desire by some to
>> add the language of the original to its 7XX analytical AP in these
>> cases, and I thought the consensus after that discussion was that the
>> AAP for the original work stood for both the work (all expressions of
>> it) and the original-language expression of the work.  But maybe I'm
>> misremembering or maybe there was no consensus.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 12/11/2015 12:02 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>      As I understand the PCC practice, the last is the correct
>>      formulation if you’re going to bring out the work and the Chinese
>>      expression. In any case, “730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t
>>      Altan tobci.” is not correct because “Altan tobci” stands for the
>>      work, not any expression of the work (including the Mongolian
>>      expression).
>>
>>      Robert L. Maxwell
>>      Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
>>      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 *Michael Chopey
>>      *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 2:33 PM
>>      *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>      *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved
>>      rda authority records
>>
>>      Then which of the following is correct for the work represented by
>>      pre-RDA NAR no2010116269? The title on the manifestation is in
>>      Chinese; it contains both the original Mongolian and a Chinese
>>      translation of the original.
>>
>>      This:
>>
>>      130 0_ Altan tobci.
>>      245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
>>      730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci.
>>      730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
>>
>>      or this:
>>
>>      130 0_ Altan tobci.
>>      245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
>>      730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
>>      730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
>>
>>      or this:
>>
>>      245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
>>      730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
>>      730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
>>
>>
>>      Thank you,
>>      Mike
>>
>>
>>      Michael A. Chopey
>>      Catalog Librarian
>>      Hamilton 008
>>      University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
>>      Honolulu, HI  96822
>>
>>      phone (808) 956-2753
>>      fax (808) 956-5968
>>
>>
>>
>>      On 12/11/2015 5:46 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>          I agree with Adam that using 1XX/240 if there is only one
>>          work/expression and 7XX's if there are more than one is the
>>          PCC practice, but I also agree with John that there are
>>          logical problems with it. For example, continuing to use 130
>>          seems very strange since 130 represents the authorized access
>>          point for a work, not an entity capable of creation, so
>>          there's no way that an entity represented by a 130 can be
>>          considered the principal creator of the work--it *is* the
>>          work. I also have advocated for some time making obsolete the
>>          peculiar MARC practice of cutting an authorized access point
>>          for a work or expression in two and recording part of it (the
>>          creator) in 1XX and the other part (the title and other
>>          additions) in 240. This causes all sorts of problems, not the
>>          least being it's difficult to control in some systems
>>          (including OCLC, apparently). It would in my opinion be better
>>          always to record work and expression authorized access points
>>          in 7XX fields, rather than sometimes recording them in 1XX/240
>>          (when there is only one). I did that on my earliest RDA
>>          records during the test period, before PCC practice solidified.
>>
>>          However, the current PCC practice is as Adam describes and
>>          should (in my opinion) be followed until it's changed. (A
>>          change I would welcome, you will not be surprised to hear.)
>>
>>          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
>>          <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>          on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
>>          <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>          *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 7:45:57 AM
>>          *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>          *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating
>>          new/improved rda authority records
>>
>>          By this logic, what is the basis for recording anything in 1XX
>>          in the MARC record?  A creator is recorded in relationship to
>>          a work, but that relationship is already covered in the 7XX
>>          fields.  In the idiosyncratic MARC scheme, 1XX represents the
>>          "main entry", a concept that is allegedly dead in RDA.  If the
>>          resource contains only one work or expression, we use the 1XX
>>          in combination with the 240 or 245 to name the work.  If, when
>>          there is more than one work or expression, we say we can't use
>>          240 or 130, then there must be no preferred title for the
>>          creator named in the 1XX to relate to.  In fact, the same
>>          logic applies when there is only one work or expression.  We
>>          have always conflated the manifestation with expression and
>>          work in the 245 and this made sense in the world of card
>>          catalogs, but there's nothing in RDA that calls for doing that.
>>
>>          ------------------------------------------
>>
>>          John Hostage
>>
>>          Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
>>
>>          Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
>>
>>          Langdell Hall 194
>>
>>          Harvard Law School Library
>>
>>          Cambridge, MA 02138
>>
>>          [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>          +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
>>
>>          +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>>          ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
>>
>>          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>          *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>          [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>          on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask]
>>          <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>          *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 22:04
>>          *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>          *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating
>>          new/improved rda authority records
>>
>>          240 (or 130 for works and expressions named by title alone)
>>          should only be used when there is a single work or expression
>>          in the resource being described.  If there are two or more,
>>          use 7XX analytic entries instead (and precede them with $i
>>          Container of (expression)).
>>
>>          Adam L. Schiff
>>
>>          Principal Cataloger
>>
>>          University of Washington Libraries
>>
>>          Box 352900
>>
>>          Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>
>>          [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>          (206) 543-8409
>>
>>          (206) 685-8782 fax
>>
>>          *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>          [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
>>          *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:15 PM
>>          *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>          *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating
>>          new/improved rda authority records
>>
>>          Do others agree with Mark?  A 240 is an expression as well as
>>          a 7XX, so why do can't we have a 240 and a 700 instead of two
>>          7XXs?
>>
>>          In practical sense, for those ILSs based on the unit card, the
>>          240 will display (without the coding) at the top of the record
>>          and will be recognizable to the patron.
>>
>>          Gene
>>
>>          On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ehlert, Mark K.
>>          <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>              On Dec 10, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]
>>              <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>              >
>>              > Also if the unif. title is under an author, would there
>>              be 240 10 title. English and then a 700 10  Name. Title.
>>              Latin.
>>              > Or are there two 7XXs instead??  This latter question
>>              has been just discussed. I thought when unif. titles were
>>              split, one was a 240, the other is a 7XX.
>>
>>              Two 7XXs.  Each language expression is only one part of
>>              the whole resource. Thus, AAPs for the parts are presented
>>              as a chain of analytical added entries.
>>
>>              --
>>              Mark K. Ehlert  O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
>>              Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas
>>                Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue
>>              Phone: 651-962-5488 <tel:651-962-5488>           St. Paul,
>>              MN 55105
>>              <http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>
>>
>>                "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
>>              the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
>>              Verona," Act I, Scene iii
>>