Print

Print


There would still be authority records, but what appears in the 130 or 240 might be solely a $0 subfield with a URI (which is basically what was done back in UTLAS, as Mac Elrod was fond of pointing out), and the library software would take care of pulling the correct display data from that authority record for displays (partially including displays for catalogers), and pulling the correct "unique" indexing data from that authority record for indexing.

In other words, exactly like true relational databases have worked for decades now.

Similarly, most subjects & genres, and some other fields related to content (dates, content type, summary, etc.) might be encoded only in the work/expression authority records, not repeated in each manifestation record, but they would get automatically pulled in on the fly when a record is to be displayed or sent for indexing.  Likewise, the "extra" RDA 3XX fields in authority records could get pulled in on the fly for displays & for indexing, thus removing the need to construct & add headings like "Argentinian women authors|x19th century" to each manifestation record.  Stretching that concept, LC subject & genre headings could be indexed similarly, resulting in functionality similar to the old Dialog/Ovid "exploded" searches, where it was possible to search for a just a term, or for that term and all of its narrower & subdivided terms.

One major area in which that approach gets sticky is the amount of data and number of levels that can be "transcluded" in the indexed version of the bibliographic record by modern/future search software, the amount of time it takes to properly index records (especially large batches of records), and the size of those indexes and the effect that has on search speed.

Joel Hahn
Database Manager
CCS, Cooperative Computer Services
Arlington Heights, IL
[log in to unmask]


From: "Yang Wang" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:40:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

“… this seems to be a bit much”

 

I agree. But, without authority records, where could we record attributes of works/expressions of those resources of which the manifestation titles serve as “AAPs”?    

 

Yang

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier

 

Yes, I've made this point many times.  

 

Adam

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:06:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 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

[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 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

[log in to unmask]

CRL website: www.crl.edu