I’ve heard a couple times now that RDA allows one to opt out of creating AAPs if the entity is represented using an identifier. I was hoping to go to 6.27.3 to see a clause saying as much, but I could find anything to that effect. 

The discussions I have been a part of that led to someone saying AAPs are optional were about AAPs for persons. I believe they were referring to some combination of 9.1.2 “An authorized access point is one of the techniques to represent either a person…” and the “and/or” found in 18.4.1.

Is there a general pattern in RDA that says an identifier/URI can stand in for an authorized access point when representing an entity? 

I often say that if URIs were ubiquitous, we wouldn’t have to worry about constructing AAPs, but rather could just focus on capturing a bunch of data/relationships about the entity. I would love to be able to point to the rules and say RDA is in some agreement.

Thanks for any insights,

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 9:07 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority records for works

There are lots of things one may do without explicit instructions. RDA itself permits the creation of expression descriptions of all kinds, including descriptions of expressions in the original language.

When creating the description (a.k.a. authority record), follow the guidelines for recording elements appropriate to expressions--content type (6.9, in MARC 336); date of expression (6.10, in MARC 046); language of expression (6.11, in MARC 377);  other distinguishing characteristic (6.12, in MARC 381). And relationships between the expression and other entities (e.g. editors, etc.) can be recorded in 5XX fields.

6.27.3 instructs us to create an authorized access point for an expression by adding elements to the authorized access point for the work. These elements are content type, date, language of the expression, and/or another distinguishing characteristic. For original-language expressions it would seem most logical to me to begin with the language of the expression and then continue to add elements if necessary to distinguish the access point from other expressions:


Verne, Jules, $d 1828-1905. $t Deux ans de vacances. $l French.


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"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]> on behalf of Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Authority records for works
Where is the instruction about one MAY create, but is not required to, a French expression of awork originaaly in French?


On Thursday, August 4, 2016, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

See the RDA NACO training course for the answer to part of this: slides 62-66.


When creating an expression authority for a translation, we are not required to also create a work authority.  The notes on slide 63 say: “If you are creating a NAR for a language expression (i.e., a translation), a NAR for the creator must also be created, if it is not already established. Optionally, libraries may create a NAR for the Work (1XX Creator. $t Work), but this is not a NACO requirement.”


You MAY create a separate expression authority for the French expression of your work, but you aren’t required to by PCC/NACO, and most catalogers let the authorized access point for the work also represent the original language expression.


Adam L. Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

[log in to unmask]



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Behra
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 3:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Authority records for works


I’ve just upgraded an OCLC record for a new novel set in 1886 in which characters in one of Jules Verne’s books come to life to find out why he had stopped writing midway through the story.  I added a tracing for the work:


600 10 Verne, Jules, $d 1828-1905. $t Deux ans de vacances.


There are four entries for translations of this work in the naf (Czech, English, Hebrew and Hungarian) but not one for the work itself (or the expression in the original language).  Questions for this specific instance:  am I obligated to create an authority record for the work?  If so, how would it differ from a record for the expression in the original language, or is there any difference between an authority record for a work and one for the expression in its original language?


It’s late to be asking these questions, but better late than never.  Reviewing my recent authority work I see I have created 15 records for translations (only two of which had existing records for the works themselves in the naf — i.e., without indication of language), without giving any thought to the creation of separate records for the works.  Looking at J. K. Rowling in the naf I see that five of the Harry Potter books have work authority records, but the following works by her don’t (they only have records for translations):


Casual vacancy

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Tales of Beedle the Bard


Thank you.


Robert Behra

J. Willard Marriott Library

University of Utah