Print

Print


Dont't want to add to much more fuel to the fire, but...

If we are cataloging an item of a manifestation of an expression of the
work (an abstraction, which we do not have in hand), then wouldn't it be
true that neither a 130, a 240 or a $t in a tracing can be an AAP for a
work, only for the expression?

For instance:
Vita Agricola / Tacitus
would have the 240 as Agricola. Latin
and not Agricola.

Am I right about that?  If so why construct an AAP for the work?

Gene Fieg.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> A number of RDA instructions mention recording relationships using
> identifiers. For example, RDA 18.4.1 says to
>
>
> Record the relationship between the resource and a person, family, or
> corporate body associated with that resource by using one or both of these
> techniques:
> a)
> identifier (see 18.4.1.1
> <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp18&target=rda18-213#rda18-213>
> )
> and/or
> b)
> authorized access point (see 18.4.1.2
> <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp18&target=rda18-225#rda18-225>
> ).
>
> Other similar instructions include 17.4.2, 23.4.1.2, 29.4. So yes, RDA
> does anticipate the ability to use identifiers instead of authorized access
> points to record relationship links between identities. However, my
> understanding is that current cataloging systems aren't able to record
> these links using identifiers alone. My understanding of this is very
> limited, however, and would be happy to learn from others who know more
> about this what possibilities identifiers have in store for us.
>
> I would like to say, however, that whether or not we get to a place where
> we no longer need authorized access points (and I think this remains to be
> seen--I personally think we'll continue at least to need a consistent label
> to help human beings identify an instance of an entity), I do think we will
> continue to need to create descriptions of instances of the entities by
> recording the attributes of those instances (e.g. for works preferred and
> variant titles, date of work, form of work, place of origin of the work,
> other characteristic, etc.--these are currently the attributes of the
> entity work, obviously they could change, but I would think recording a
> cluster of attributes, whatever they are, would remain the basis of
> description of an entity.)
>
> 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]> on
> behalf of Folsom, Steven <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2016 8:47 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Authority records for works
>
> Bob,
>
> 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,
> Steven
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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]> 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?
>
> Gene
>
> 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:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/
>> Module%201-NACO%20Foundations.pptx
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.loc.gov_catworkshop_courses_naco-2DRDA_Module-25201-2DNACO-2520Foundations.pptx&d=CwMF-g&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=nOBG2_NbYDeeutfI6oVjC2-VeKxHfRfFN_eDQftfT6k&m=oByV_CqW_Q26q53BJsmLzdf0XEYGjR6iwL_PZq1FUNI&s=RE0IkJ_oPUNO5eOS-zZktlx-gsd47jKNlC5nVckUzL4&e=>
>> 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]
>> GOV] *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
>>
>