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.
(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
[log in to unmask]
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]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier
“… 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 .