That i agee with and see. I was suggesting that if the bibliographic record is that of an expression, then shouldn't the AAPs, in the s 240 or130, also be denoted as an expression AAP, no matter how many bibliographic expressions there may be? Gene On Saturday, August 6, 2016, Charles Croissant <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > In the context of bibliographic records, AAPs for works will occur when it > is necessary to express a subject relationship, that is, to express that > Work A has Work B as its topic. See for example LCCN 2012009104 > (abbreviated here to focus on the work-as-topic situation): > > 245 00 $a Augustine's City of God : $b a critical guide / $c edited by > James Wetzel. > 600 00 $a Augustine, $c Saint, Bishop of Hippo. $t De civitate Dei. > 700 1_ $a Wetzel, James, $e editor. > the work "Augustine's City of God" is about the work "De civitate Dei;" it > is not about any particular language expression of "De civitate Dei." So > the access point used in the subject position is the AAP for the work -- it > would be inappropriate to include any subfield $l in such a subject > heading. According to FRBR, language is not an attribute of the work; > language only comes into play at the expression level. > Charles Croissant > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote: > >> When would we use it (work AAP) in a bibliographic record? >> >> Gene >> >> On Saturday, August 6, 2016, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote: >> >>> Because the work has different attributes from any given expression. >>> >>> >>> >>> For example, the date of any given Latin expression we might be >>> cataloging will be a modern date, the date when the edition was created by >>> the editor (through examination and comparison of the manuscripts). >>> “Agricola” has a “date of work” approximately 98 AD., not a date in the 20 >>> th or 21st century (the “date of expression” most expressions we would >>> be cataloging have). >>> >>> >>> >>> The work “Agricola” has a form, “biography”. This gets recorded in the >>> record for the work, not the record for the expression (which doesn’t have >>> a form of work attribute). >>> >>> >>> >>> Because the work has different attributes than the expressions of that >>> work it makes sense to record those attributes. At the moment we record >>> them by creating a description of the work (a.k.a. authority record for the >>> work). >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 *Gene Fieg >>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 06, 2016 3:58 PM >>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>> *Subject:* Re: Authority records for works >>> >>> >>> >>> 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[image: >>> http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png] >>> <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp18&target=rda18-213#rda18-213> >>> ) >>> >>> and/or >>> >>> b) >>> >>> authorized access point (see 18.4.1.2[image: >>> http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png] >>> <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-N >>> ACO%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]] *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 >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Charles Croissant > Senior Catalog Librarian > Pius XII Memorial Library > Saint Louis University > St. Louis, MO 63108 >