Print

Print


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
>