Other distinguishing characteristic of expression DOES go in parentheses. See the final 4 examples in 6.27.3. The RDA mappings in the Toolkit used to show the punctuation to use, but that’s been removed from there, and I haven’t found where the punctuation guidelines for access points are available.
Thanks! You were a step ahead of me.
I think I will change the authority record and put the new qualifier in an $s subfield, and remove the parentheses.
Do you think there was any reason to change the qualifier, though? I would think a year is still acceptable for that purpose.
There should be $s in front of the parentheses. The qualifier that was added represents “other distinguishing characteristic of the expression” (RDA 6.12) and this addition is subfielded in $s.
University of Washington Libraries
I realize that the authority record, in both previous and current form, is for an expression.
However, the formulation
Works (Lonergan Research Institute)
seems to imply that we have here a particular work distinguished by the qualifier “Lonergan Research Institute,” rather than an expression of the work simply CC-titled “Works.”
That is why I think it is an incorrect formulation. I don’t think we can distinguish a particular expression of a work by appending a parenthetical qualifier (not separately subfielded) to the preferred title for the work, right? I think we can only distinguish a work from another work that way.
You are mistaken. Both the old AAP and the new AAP are for an Expression, not the Work. The AAP for the Work is Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works, which does not currently have an authority record.
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.