I believe you are misreading the rules. RDA 6.2.2.10 says: “If a compilation of works is commonly identified by a title or form of title…apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4-6.2.2.7.”

Then it says “For other compilations, apply the instructions 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3”.

So we have a conditional: if the compilation is commonly identified by a title, then we apply 6.2.2.4-7; if not, apply 6.2.2.10.1-4. We only use a conventional title if it is _not_ commonly identified by a title which can be used as a preferred title.

Steve McDonald

[log in to unmask]

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When one compilation-work becomes a different one

I am not objecting to using Les Negras as the “preferred title” by applying RDA 6.2.2.10, as one would only need to read the instruction in the first sentence (and stop at the phrase “commonly known”). But if we read on, we will notice that there are two exceptions, one regarding complete works (6.2.2.10.1), the other regarding complete works in a single form (6.2.2.10.2).

This means that, even if some author’s complete short stories is “commonly known” as A (and even if it has a unique title, be it in Russian, German, French, Greek or Arabic), its preferred title will have to be B [Short stories].

By the same logic, a compilation of selected short stories such as “Les Negras” clearly belongs to the total output of the author in a single form, representing part/whole relationship [= Short stories. Selections].

If you choose “Les Negras” as the preferred title for the aggregate work, may I ask what type of authority work would be needed here? And what authorized access points could be expected in the bibliographical record?

Under 6.2.2.13, if you choose “Les Negras” as the preferred title, you would also need to record each “preferred title” within the compilation as authorized access points:

100 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda.

. . . . . .

700 1 Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Negras.

700 12 ǂi Container of (work). ǂa Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Wanwe.

700 12 ǂi Container of (work). ǂa Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Matronas.

700 12 ǂi Container of (work). ǂa Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Saeta.

That is why, I think, LC/PCC instructs (as Alternative to 6.2.2.13) to record a conventional collective title and to “[a]pply this instruction instead of or in addition to recording the preferred title for each of the works in the compilation”). LC also instructs its catalogers to “[g]ive an authorized access point for the first or predominant work”:

100 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda.

240 10 Short stories. ǂk Selections

. . . . . .

700 12 Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Wanwe.

100 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda.

. . . . . .

700 1 Arroyo Pizarro. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections.

700 12 ǂi Container of (work). ǂa Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Wanwe.

Now, “Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections” is already in NAF and serves as “undifferentiated” conventional collective Name/Title and could be applied to (by LC, at least) to any compilation of short stories by Arroyo Pizarro. As it is, some catalogers choose specific titles as such “Les Negras” as preferred titles, while others follow LC practice, more or less. Here lies the problem. We have a split file.

If your “Les Negras” as preferred title appears just in 245 with no authorized access point(s) in the bib, we would have no place to record other core elements (for example, of form, date, place of origin, say, Wanwe, if found in the same or other resources). On the other hand, if only a 240 field exists in the form of ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections, without a parenthetical qualifier, we would end up with creating an authority record (the last example) “Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Wanwe” in isolation. We could not possibly have a 500 10 ǂw r ǂi In … (work): ǂa Arroyo Pizarro. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections, could we?! But we had a unique conventional collective ǂa Arroyo Pizarro. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections (Las negras) or a simple unique Name/Title, as some prefer, ǂa Arroyo Pizarro. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Negras, it would certainly open a lot of possibilities in terms of content description under RDA.

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 7:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When one compilation-work becomes a different one

I don't see any evidence that the collection called "Las Negras" has ever been known by any other title than "Las Negras". That being the case, RDA explicitly says that "Las negras" would be the preferred title. (RDA 6.2.2.10: "If a compilation of works is commonly identified by a title or form of title in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.7.") If there is some other instruction somewhere to the contrary, or if there actually is evidence that the collection published as "Las Negras" is not known by that title, I would appreciate having that pointed out.

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 2:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When one compilation-work becomes a different one

To me, number 2, Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Short stories. $k Selections (Golpes de gracia), makes most sense under RDA. Number 3, less so, since no authority work is needed (No ARN means no attributes of the work are recorded). Number 1, hardly.

As I understand it, under RDA, different works or aggregate works must not have identical preferred titles as AAPs/ARNs. If titles are identical or too similar, parenthetical qualifiers must be added to break the conflict (6.27.1.9). Since these are core elements (6.2.2-6.8),

Preferred title for the work

Form of the work

Date of the work

Place of the origin of the work

Other distinguishing characteristic of the work

Identifier for the work (unique character string or with a surrogate such as an authority record)

I find it puzzling why it is considered acceptable to use [and to create] undifferentiated Name/Titles AAPs and ARNs. I am citing the following bib, since the work “Las Negras” has just been mentioned in the previous segment of this thread.

OCLC bib#919096127

100 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda, ǂe author.

240 10 Short stories. ǂk Selections

245 10 Las Negras / ǂc Yolanda Arroyo Pizarro.

264 1 Cabo Rojo, PR : ǂb Editora Educación Emergente, ǂc [2013]

300 82 pages : ǂb 2 illustrations ; ǂc 21 cm

505 0 Wanwe -- Matronas -- Saeta.

520 Three short stories about women slaves.

……

ARN n 2013055559

100 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ǂt Short stories. ǂk Selections

400 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ‡t Epidemiología, narrativa post influenza AH1N1

400 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ‡t Lunación

400 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ‡t Antes y después de suspirar

[400 1# Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. ‡t Negras] (to be added?)

670 Epidemiología, narrativa post influenza AH1N1, 2010.

670 Her Lunación, 2012.

670 Her Antes y después de suspirar, 2013.

[670 Las Negras, 2013.] (to be added?

670 [and more to come …?]

If we were to catalog a treatise solely on Arroyo Pizarro’s “Las Negras,” what AAP could we possibly choose for the 600 1# field as subject?

Yang

Western Languages Cataloging Team

Princeton University Library

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] When one compilation-work becomes a different one

In the LC NACO authority file, two titles have been established under "Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda" which widen the range of AAP possibilities to three:

Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Short stories. $k Selections -- with 400s for three separate titles of earlier collections.

Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Short stories. $k Selections (Golpes de gracia) -- the title of a fourth story collection, not included among the 400s above.

Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Negras -- Pete Wilson's case, another short story collection entered this time under its own title in existing bib records.

How can we make sense of this? One step is to understand that ".. $t Short stories. $k Selections" and "...$t Negras" are AAPs for different things. The first has been used to name several short story collections collectively, not one. The third option names a particular collection only as a work. The middle option tries to have it both ways, borrowing the collective AAP and adding a qualifier title to make it particular.

Since we don't as a general rule insert a conventional collective title between an author and a work title (i.e., we don't use "Shakespeare, ... $t Plays. $k Selections (King Lear)"), the middle option seems dubious. It also seems dubious to suppose that the first option represents only the three compilations which its 400s name and not Golpes de gracia. Either a resource has a particular work title or it doesn't. If it has one, it doesn't need the conventional collective title. If a compilation doesn't have a particular distinctive title, then any qualifying information added to make a conventional collective title specific should come from somewhere else.

So the question becomes, can a compilation have a particular work title? RDA 6.2.2.10.3's Alternative instruction says, "When identifying two or more works in a compilation, identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title (see 6.2.2.10.1 or 6.2.2.10.2, as applicable), followed by Selections. Apply this instruction instead of or in addition to recording the preferred title for each of the works in the compilation." The LC-PCC PS for this instruction adds, "Give an authorized access point for the first or predominant work."

This is generally taken as applying to the name of the compilation; but that's not really what the instruction says. The conventional collective title is meant as a replacement for separately identifying the parts of a compilation with AAPs, not as a name for the compilation itself. A strict application of the 6.2.2.10.3 alternative instruction and LC-PCC PS would look something like this:

100 1 $a Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda.

240 10 $a Negras

245 14 $a Las negras / $c ...

505 0 $a Wanwe -- Matronas -- Saetas.

700 12 $a Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Short stories. $k Selections.

700 12 $a Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Wanwe.

As for the compilation, RDA 6.2.2.8, Recording the Preferred Title for a Work, says, "This instruction applies to individual works and to compilations of works.

Record the title chosen as the preferred title for a work by applying the basic instructions at 6.2.1." RDA 6.2.1.1 defines the title of the work as "A word, character, or group of words and/or characters by which a work is known." The instruction at 6.2.2.4, Works Created after 1500, says to "choose as the preferred title the title or form of title in the original language by which the work is commonly identified either through use in resources embodying the work or in reference sources." In this case, "Negras" is the title in the original language by which the compilation work is commonly identified through use in resources embodying the work; so "Negras" is the preferred title.

The important thing is that RDA does not impose a choice between "Negras" and a conventional collective title. Both are appropriate as part of the resource description, since they signify different things--the name of the compilation vs. an alternative to enumerating the contents of the compilation with separate AAPs.

And yes, I know this is a novel reading of RDA, and suspect that I've missed some important instruction that will easily unravel everything I've said; but before that happens, look again at the brave little record up there. Wouldn't this be a better way to handle compilations with distinctive titles?

I'd answer Pete's original question about whether the addition of a story to a later edition of "Negras" constitutes a new work in the negative, preferring "expanded as (expression)" to clarify the relationship between the original three-story expression and the later expanded four-story one. One source I saw for the latter called it a second edition, which aligns with treating it as an expression. This may also reflect differences in the way the term "work" is valued. I generally prefer to see a creator's production defined as fewer works and more expressions, based on a sense that this sort of analysis concentrates the work entities and thereby enhances their value. Treating a resource which adds relatively little to an existing work as a new work has the effect of diluting the significance of the work designation. But that's an argument more from sentiment than from reason.

Stephen

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello cataloging friends,

I have a question about when one work becomes another.

Please see LCCN 2012552039 (OCLC #809833452). This is the record for a collection of three apparently related short stories by Yolanda Arroyo Pizarro, published in 2012, with title Las negras. The cataloger chose not to use a conventional collective title to identify the compilation work, which seems reasonable to me. The title proper is serving as the preferred title for the work.

Now I have an edition of the book published in 2016 with one (rather brief) additional story. It’s called “Edicion aumentada” on the title page verso.

Is this a new work, or a new expression of the original work? It seems to me that the work-to-work relationship designator “Expanded version of (work)” applies perfectly to this situation. But how much expansion does there have to be? The previously published part of the new book, plus some introductory material, takes up 130 pages and the new story just 10.

If it’s a new work, then I guess I should follow the decision of the cataloger of the original work and use the title proper as my preferred title, qualifying it probably by year.

I suspect there is published guidance that I am missing. Please lead me to it!

Thanks!

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID: 0000-0002-3590-1242