Is there a use case for using the NAF? E.g., are there cases where these “aliens” have works attributed to them?
My feeling is that the case for establishing fictional entities in the NAF as opposed to LCSH is more pragmatic that theoretical. That is: pace LRM, we want to be able to provide access to works through the names of fictional entities who are associated with them, and it’s far more efficient to do that in the NAF than LCSH.
If “Aliens” (or xenomorphs, facehuggers, whatever they are called) only see subject use I should think LCSH would be the more appropriate place for them.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Fictitious species
Consider the Xenomorph.
In noting that the titular creature in the Alien franchise and attendant media properties wasn't represented in the NAF [nor LCSH, perhaps needing to be moved to the NAF], I found myself hesitating.
There is no singular Alien character which appears throughout Alien 1-4, Prometheus, Covenant, AvP 1-2, various comics and video games etc. -- It's a fictional species.
Is a fictional species considered a "group of fictitious characters" and therefore meant for inclusion in LCSH as per H 1610?
I note that there is an LCSH for their occasional sparring partner:
"Predator (Fictitious character : Dark Horse Comics)"
Which I also note is treated as though it refers to a singular individual [and thus is a candidate for being moved to the NAF] despite also being a species and has been applied to disparate works featuring different [and multiple] Predators.
So my question is: do fictional species such as the Xenomorph and the Predator belong in the NAF or in LCSH?
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]
My pronouns are he/him/his