Print

Print


Doesn't this whole discussion point to the vagueness of the English used in
RDA?

Gene Fieg

On Monday, October 31, 2016, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well, let’s see.
>
>
>
> Regarding 6.2.2.10.1 or 6.2.2.10.2,  it’s not really a simple
> conditional, is it? It reads more like “unless” or “except if …” (that is,
> when dealing with “Complete works” or “works in a single form”).
>
>
>
> Would you treat, say, the commonly known “The Penguin complete Sherlock
> Holmes” as preferred title and establish it in NAF as “100 1# Doyle, Arthur
> Conan, 1959-1930. Penguin complete Sherlock Holmes”? Or, you wouldn’t even
> establish it in NAF, since the compilation has a unique title (commonly
> identified as such) in field 245 in the bib?
>
>
>
> Likewise, *Die Briefe an Gräfin Sizzo : 1921-1926* (a commonly known
> compilation; by Rainer Maria Rilke) would have “100 1# Rilke, Rainer Maria,
> 1875-1926. Briefe an Gräfin Sizzo” instead of “Rilke, Rainer Maria,
> 1875-1926. Correspondence. Selections (…)”as an AAP?
>
>
>
> Yang
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *McDonald, Stephen
> *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2016 3:17 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] When one compilation-work becomes a different one
>
>
>
> 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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2016 2:58 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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.
>
> Or
>
>                 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]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *Kevin M Randall
> *Sent:* Friday, October 28, 2016 7:16 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
>
> 847.491.2939
>
>
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Friday, October 28, 2016 2:33 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *Stephen Hearn
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 27, 2016 4:08 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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
>