The NAF authority for "Snow White and the seven dwarfs" contains the standard 667 advisory:
"DESCRIPTIVE USAGE: Heading for the basic story, not to be used as an authorized access point in bibliographic records without language of expression added, e.g., Snow White and the seven dwarfs. French. ..."
However, RDA's relationship designators open up possibilities where the addition of a language of expression is problematic. For example, the motion picture "Blancanieves" is an adaptation of the Snow White. The earlier convention for descriptive use of tale headings would expect:
730 0 $a Snow White and the seven dwarfs. $l Spanish
That entry would collocate the resource with other Spanish versions of the tale.
RDA would permit
730 0 $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Snow White and the seven dwarfs
Adding "$l Spanish" to that confuses things, given that the film (which reportedly involves bullfighting) does not claim to be an adaptation of a particular Spanish version of Snow White, which would be implied by the grammar of the RDA 730. Alternatively, one could use the LCSH heading "Snow White (Tale)" instead of the NAF heading with the relationship designator, but that seems like even more of an awkward stretch.
Can we assume that in a new use like the RDA 730 above, the insistence in the authority on adding a language qualifier can be ignored?
Given that the two 730s are being used to say different things, would it be appropriate to have both in the record?
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455