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.
Casey A. Mullin
Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
Western Washington University
Chair, Music OCLC Users Group
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.
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
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?
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
GOV] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 8:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Summarization of Content, 7.10
Is there at this time a MARC field in an expression name authority record to record summarization of content as instructed in 188.8.131.52? 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?