Print

Print


I think of AAPs like "[Name]. $t Short stories. $k Selections" (or LC's preferred "Name. $t Title. $l Language" as the AAP for all a work's translations in that language) as AAPs for semantically useful classes or open-ended sets.  They are different from the sets defined by undifferentiated personal names in that the members of the latter sets may have nothing in common but a name and a status as persons.  The members of one of these work/expression sets share a creator, a form, a language of expression, and in many cases will have overlapping content.  RDA is more parsimonious about recognizing classes than traditional cataloging has been about using them.  In any case, AAPs like these make more sense as classes of things than as single things, and would be more useful as access points summarizing a resource's contents than as a preferred title for it.

The other question is whether a compilation can have a distinctive preferred title under RDA.  One can't argue that all compilation titles pass this test, but when they do, I'm not seeing anything in RDA which prevents that title becoming an AAP.  And if so, the third option access point, “Arroyo Pizarro, Yolanda. $t Negras," could be established as a work AAP (it isn't established at present). A contrasting case would be something like "[Author]. $t Selected poems", published 1995 and revised under the same title in 2007, which might become "[Author]. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 1995" as an AAP for the first collection specifically or possibly "[Author]. $t Selected poems. $f 1995". It probably wouldn't become "[Author]. $t Poems. $k Selections $s (Selected poems. 1995)".

ARN usually refers to OCLC Authority Record Number. Cf the Connexion index choice for authorities, "OCLC ARN (an:)" LC record numbers are usually cited as LCCNs. 

Stephen

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
What is an ARN?

Gene Fieg

On Friday, October 28, 2016, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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]OV] 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

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242




--
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