Print

Print


Stephen, THANK YOU for giving more historical background on card headings.  It really does point out how the headings were meant as *sorting aids*.  It is really quite unfortunate that we have now twisted the "conventional collective titles" into being the *names of the works* when they were not intended to be any such thing.  They were just a means of getting the cards sorted into a certain sequence to help the user find what they were looking for.  In today's automated catalogs, and especially with the rampant misinterpretation/misapplication of RDA 6.2.2.10, they only cause confusion.  (And the ones for "Selections" especially so...)

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

Are an author's "complete works" an aggregate work? Maybe. But if a published complete works collection includes more than the author's works, e.g., a preface, introduction, critical apparatus, etc., then it arguably becomes an aggregate work, not just an expression, distinct and separate from the author's "Works". If the bib record wants to represent both, it will need both an AAP for the author's Works and a separate AAP for the aggregate work in which they appear. The latter might not be entered under the author's name at all.

A sidelight on the date qualifier for Works which in part prompted Pete Wilson's initial question-- The use of date at the end of a heading string did not begin as a way of differentiating Works. It's one of the true vestiges of catalog card technology. When card filers were doing their job, the filing rules instructed them which data elements to sort by if there were multiple cards with the same heading. In most cases the sorting element would be at the top of the base card, so the subarrangement was relatively easy; but in some case, the filers were instructed to subarrange the cards with identical headings by publication date. The date you were filing into might be halfway down in a card.  If the file drawer was crowded, it could be hard to see. As an aid to card filers, it became practice to include the publication date at the end of certain heading strings--... Works, ... Selections, Bible ..., and analytic added entries. These added dates were dropped from analytic added entries years ago, but they've persisted on the first three cases named. The fact that they did not represent a true differentiation among works can be seen by looking at older authorities, e.g., "Shakespeare, William, $5 1564-1616. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 1969" (n 88073526), which lists several distinct collections all sharing that AAP.

Stephen

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Presumably your second sentence. But maybe I’m missing something. If I am, I may not be the only one – and therein lies the problem of correct profession-wide implementation. Enough catalogers need to have a good intuitive understanding of all this to implement it correctly. Incorrectly constructed authority records create bad examples in the database used by others who still haven’t figured it out and can’t tell a correct authority record from an incorrect one. And the result is more incorrect examples.

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326<tel:(773)%20955-4545>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
CRL website: www.crl.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.crl.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=_8sm0BMEposbPqfkWv4C0ORbG0F1D_ZhRbbftGu7I50&m=3FKWWRN1xKqHApKKjHYNUarmT1XMxG1lwd3imYbcBJI&s=AdtBmtMagjD5832KIlrTXHGL3OhTfHCe7J-Kv-YdxDY&e=>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:07 AM

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

But if the policy were to always include the language in the expression AAP, wouldn't that mean that *every* RDA bib record will require a 130 or 240 field? Or would we do it only for things that have expression authority records? While I'm not terribly bothered by a certain (limited) amount of inconsistency in the bibliographic database due to evolving standards, this seems to be a bit much.

Kevin
(who is getting even more impatient waiting for the day when identifiers take the place of AAPs)

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
847.491.2939<tel:(847)%20491-2939>

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

Bob wrote:

“… Whew. All that being said, “Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works $s (Lonergan Research Institute)” is a perfectly fine AAP at the expression level, but the presence or absence of subfield coding being the only clue that it’s at the expression level and not at the work level seems pretty thin to me and must be quite opaque to our users (if not most catalogers). (This comment applies to any work/expression AAP, not just ones involving the conventional collective title “Works”.)

This is one reason I favor routinely including the language for textual expressions, even for original-language expressions: “Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works. $l English $s (Lonergan Research Institute)”. The inclusion of the language makes it completely clear that the AAP is for an expression, especially in the absence of any marker in the MARC authority format that explicitly distinguishes work-level authority records from expression-level authority records.
”

I strongly agree with Bob! I suspect that there are more than a few catalogers, including NACO contributors, who are not yet able to intuitively distinguish between expression level and work level access points. _Always_ adding language to an expression level access point might seem tedious and redundant, but I think it may be necessary until the _majority_ of catalogers finally “get it.” Maybe in 10 years a task group can do a study and determine that $l (or the post-MARC equivalent) can be omitted from original language expression access points. But for now I believe: if it’s expression level, always include $l .

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326<tel:(773)%20955-4545>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
CRL website: www.crl.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.crl.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=_8sm0BMEposbPqfkWv4C0ORbG0F1D_ZhRbbftGu7I50&m=3FKWWRN1xKqHApKKjHYNUarmT1XMxG1lwd3imYbcBJI&s=AdtBmtMagjD5832KIlrTXHGL3OhTfHCe7J-Kv-YdxDY&e=>



--
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