Print

Print


I don't think [and correct me if I'm wrong, please!] that anyone is
suggesting that our future will eliminate text strings which can nicely
interfile and collocate W/E entities -- rather that the identifier alone
will be sufficient to fulfill the uniqueness requirement for system
differentiation, on the back end -- and then the users [or institutional
profiles or what not] can select the appearance to be generated on the fly
of the access point.

in solidarity,

Netanel Ganin
------------------------------------------------------------
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]

My pronouns are he/him/his


On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Text string based AAPs, using W/E entities + qualifiers, are of tremendous
> value to those who want to browse name/title headings. To appreciate the
> “quantum leap” from the old catalog to the current NAF,  take a look at the
> name/title index of Homer’s two epics in English translation: Iliad, 43
> (AAPs), Odyssey 35 (AAPs), THANKS to UPB! Would faceted,
> identifier-based/keyword searches yield the same results in less than 30
> seconds via BIBFRAME, Google, Amazon?
>
>
>
> Yang
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *McDonald, Stephen
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:03 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with
> qualifier
>
>
>
> There generally wouldn’t be user-readable labels “Work” and “Expression”.
> There is no need for that to be presented to the user.
>
>
>
>
>                                   Steve McDonald
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Amy Turner
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:57 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with
> qualifier
>
>
>
> If it is hard for catalogers to intuit how to apply these rules, how do we
> expect the “correct” results to be understood by the public?  I especially
> wonder about user-readable links and labels using the words “work” and
> “expression.”   The terms have many meanings in English, and their FRBR
> meanings probably haven’t made it to reference works outside of the library
> profession.
>
>
>
> Amy
>
>
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Early
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:22 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with
> qualifier
>
>
>
> 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 <(773)%20955-4545>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> CRL website: www.crl.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Kevin M Randall
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:07 AM
> *To:* [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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.library.northwestern.edu&d=DwMFAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=Dc2zJWQZhGVM4krkr2m4NTiSqZ5Ld3IvJ8wM_1HzJMc&m=pDAKNro8SPNJFh7Y8Wew_7RouRQlBNEgZSHQ5N0BDLM&s=H5_mKYmJVb3aOGoafmutAEANzEVq1gglk-W9WVjyNBg&e=>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 847.491.2939 <(847)%20491-2939>
>
>
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[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
>
>
>
> 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 <(773)%20955-4545>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> CRL website: www.crl.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.crl.edu&d=DwMFAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=Dc2zJWQZhGVM4krkr2m4NTiSqZ5Ld3IvJ8wM_1HzJMc&m=pDAKNro8SPNJFh7Y8Wew_7RouRQlBNEgZSHQ5N0BDLM&s=TielR2YzT7htzkP7LpmPbhhSPXDsT9KBo_5RzWVJduM&e=>
>