Print

Print


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