Print

Print


John Hostage said:
> The Sherlock Holmes stories are probably a good example of the complexity
> of choosing preferred titles for such compilations.  Here is a sample of the
> titles that have been used in the 100 field of name authority records:
>
> Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
> Case-book of Sherlock Holmes
> Complete Sherlock Holmes (conflicts with 400 field on two NARs)
> Illustrated Sherlock Holmes treasury
> Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
> Novels. Selections
> Return of Sherlock Holmes
> Selections. Armenian  (est. in August; lacks “Works”)
> Short stories. Selections
> Works. Selections
>
> I suppose some could be considered to be the title by which a collection is known.  

Yes, this is a good example.  RDA 6.2.2 is concerned with identifying and recording the Preferred Title of the Work.  Most of those (except for the conventional titles) are clearly titles of specific Expressions.  The fact that there is a plurality of titles shows that there is no Preferred Title of the Work representing the complete works.  We cannot apply the first instruction of 6.2.2.10 and have to go to 6.2.2.10.1 and create a conventional title as Preferred Title.

As a matter of fact, I can't off the top of my head think of a complete works which has a name by which it is generally identified regardless of edition or publisher; the only exceptions I can think of are cases where the complete works also happens to be a single cohesive series.  In the case of a series, I think it would be appropriate to use the series name as Preferred Title, using 6.2.2.10.  Do others agree?.  Other than that, it may be that there are almost no cases where we would apply the first instruction in 6.2.2.10 to a complete works simply because the collections usually don't have names as Works.  I would be interested if anyone can come up with such a case.

					Steve McDonald
					[log in to unmask]