Sorry I’m a bit late to the party.

 

I agree with most of what’s been said this afternoon:

1.       Yes, there can only be one RDA/FRBR work that represents the complete works (or purported complete works) of a single person, so an AAP with the preferred title “Works” will never need qualifying at the work level.

2.       Therefore, qualification has to occur at the expression level, if the cataloger feels different versions need to be distinguished from each other. Note that if there is only one version, no qualifier (whether a date, or a parenthetical qualifier) is needed at all, except

3.       As has been pointed out, if the complete works are presented as a series, it probably always needs some sort of qualification because the resulting 8XX indexing form in the bibliographic record doesn’t make much sense as “… $t Works ; $v v. 10” (given the possibility that there might be another non-series version out there)

4.       All qualifiers (date of work, form, anything) at the work level are within parentheses with no subfield coding

5.       All qualifiers at the expression level are preceded by some sort of subfield coding; they don’t all go in parentheses, it depends on what the qualifier is (e.g., date of expression does not go in parentheses)

6.       So, Pete is correct, Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works (Lonergan Research Institute) is not correct, it needs subfield coding ($s, as Adam has pointed out)

 

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.

 

It also clarifies to our users that the text is in a particular language. I realize that all that is necessary from an RDA standpoint is enough to distinguish the expression from all other expressions, which “(Lonergan Research Institute)” or a date do perfectly well, but our users do use the labels we attach to these things to help choose between resources or even decide to give a given resource a second look beyond the index.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

 

Pete,

 

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.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

 

Stephen,

 

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.

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

 

Pete,

 

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.

 

                                                                        Steve McDonald

                                                                        [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

 

Hi folks,

 

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.

 

Thanks!

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University