Print

Print


Date of the work or expression is another element that is recorded in work/expression authority records that is not typically recorded in bibliographic records.

I agree with Netanel, I have also been puzzled why summarization of the content is an attribute of the expression rather than the work in RDA. I should think a plot summary of Moby Dick would remain the same no matter what expression of Moby Dick it is. If the plot summary isn’t the same in some expression, it’s probably not an expression of Moby Dick but a new work.

As for the mysterious difference between RDA chapters 6 and 7, I’ve never quite figured out why it was organized as it was, except that chapter 6 elements appear to be things you record in authority records and chapter 7 elements seem to be things you don’t. On the other hand, chapter 6 covers two different entities, work and expression, as does chapter 7. It’s always struck me, since I first looked at the organization of RDA, that this was an inappropriate and illogical way to organize it. Hopefully with the RDA Toolkit Redesign/Reorganization (3R) project all elements of work will be in one chapter, and all elements of expression will be in a separate chapter, and they won’t be split up (and combined) in this bizarre way.

Bob

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Summarization of Content, 7.10

Thanks to both Stephen and Casey for the the responses -- I may consider the 678 or 680.

I admit to being stymied as to why the expression level is where summarization of content is it seems redundant to repeat a summary of Moby Dick in its myriad expression records rather than once in the work record. But mine is not to reason why, mine is but to record, transcribe, link relationships, and die.

thanks again!

in solidarity,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

My pronouns are he/him/his


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Casey Mullin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I must disagree. Name-title authority records do a whole lot more than merely establishing an AAP. In music in particular, cross references (VAPs) are employed extensively, as are data fields defined in MARC to hold work attributes. 380, 382, 383, 384, 370, just to name a few examples. Then there are the powerful 5xx fields for Appendix J relationships. Expression-level authority records are less common, but are being more extensively used by some libraries these days.

I agree that MARC is not the best carrier of RDA data, but it’s what we are currently working with. Authority files are powerful tools for discovery that are woefully little used in the current generation of public catalogs. If we are ever to realize the benefits of a WEMI-inspired discovery environment, utilization of authority data that describes works and expressions is all but imperative. Certainly many, many works in the bibliographic universe are described only in MARC bib records, but that does not mean we should limit ourselves to that data as a source for the next generation of metadata carriers and discovery tools. Indeed, I believe many have used the advent of RDA as an impetus for creating more work- and expression-level authority data. In the music community, we’ve been voluminous producers of same for decades.

As to the question at hand, absent a specific MARC field in the authority format for 7.10, I’d recommend considering 678 or even 680. It’s not a direct mapping for a summary per se, but it’s a place to record data that may aid in identification of a work/expression.

Thanks,
Casey

________________________________
Casey A. Mullin
Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
Western Washington University

Chair, Music OCLC Users Group

360-650-7458<tel:(360)%20650-7458>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 12:38 PM

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Summarization of Content, 7.10

The MARC bib record is currently the place that Work and  Expression attributes are recorded.  The only real use of the title authority record is to establish the AAP.  This is in contrast to the use of name authority records.  Name attributes cannot be recorded in bib records, thus they must be recorded in the authority record.

I suspect that the reason is that RDA expected that new systems that are better suited to WEMI would replace MARC.

                                                            Steve McDonald
                                                            Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
                                                            [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Summarization of Content, 7.10

Netanel,

No, I don’t believe that there is a specific MARC field to record this attribute of the expression.  This is also true of most of the attributes of the work and other attributes of the expression found in RDA chapter 7.   For example, were I to create a work authority record for a dissertation, there is no specific place to record RDA 7.9 Dissertation or Thesis Information, although at least I could record the form of work as a thesis in field 380.

I’m not sure why most of the work and expression content attributes found in chapter 7 weren’t provided a place in the MARC Authority Format.  Perhaps someone who worked on the original group that proposed MARC revisions and new fields for RDA back so many years ago might know and be willing to comment on this?

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 8:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Summarization of Content, 7.10

PCC folks,

Is there at this time a MARC field in an expression name authority record to record summarization of content as instructed in 7.10.1.3? The LC-PCC-PS for same discusses only bibliographic records, and all my searching has turned up nothing.

If not, is there perhaps a proposal in the works to create such a field?

thanks!

in solidarity,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645<tel:(781)%20736-4645> / [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

My pronouns are he/him/his