But was there anything wrong with the heading as it was? It contained a year qualifier at expression level. It was not ambiguous. I would think the year qualifier at expression level is preferable to a parenthetical qualifier attached directly to the preferred title for the work.
If we want to qualify by the publisher of the multipart monograph, shouldn’t it go into a $s subfield? See no2016097270. I’m not sure why it was necessary to change the qualifier at all, but it seems like that is the form that should have been used for this sort of qualifier.
This is actually a series access point for a multipart monograph. Such access points will always need an addition. It would make no sense to say “Lonergan, Bernard J. F. ǂt Works ; ǂv v. 4.”
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
I am curious about a “Works” name-title authority record.
The NACO authority with heading
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works. $f 1988
was recently changed to
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works (Lonergan Research Institute)
I don’t believe this is legitimate RDA usage, is it?
My understanding is that there is only one “Works” work for each author, possibly with multiple expressions. The parenthetical qualifier here is at the work level, and thus distinguishes this “work” from other “works” that constitute the complete works of Lonergan. (Getting through these multiple senses of “work” is a lot of work.) That does not seem to be correct.