Print

Print


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
>