Print

Print


One question to be resolved in this if the decision is to follow the route for undifferentiated record decomposition--what, if anything, to report to LC for bibliographic file maintenance (BFM).  That step is customary in cases where personal identities are being pried out of an undiff record.

I think it's still the case that LC does not create access points for individual expressions, but will accept access points for same on bibliographic records used for copy cataloging.  I don't know what they would want to hear about.

Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
Gaylord Music Library
Washington University in St. Louis
[log in to unmask] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] naco question [now Poems New & Old]

Thank you Ian, this gets at why I was asking. I had assumed by analogy that the process would be similar to the process for dealing with undifferentiated personal name authority records. Except that there isn't the wealth of documentation for work and expression headings that there is for personal names. I was hoping there would be some official NACO policy on how to make these changes because even starting from the premise that this is a problem which needs to be resolved, there are several ways of going about it. For example, it would be nice to put some sort of note on the undifferentiated heading to alert people that the 400s represent different aggregate works (especially because they are not always different aggregate works, sometimes the various 400s are merely American title vs British title). 

I've had similar problems with expression headings where I know that there are multiple translations on one language heading, but I can't find any information on the translators. These usually have complicated and incomplete publishing histories where the same anonymous translation is published multiple times in different years by different publishers. I look forward to a non-text string based future where difficulties in unique string composition do not prevent us from saying that things are different.

Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] naco question [now Poems New & Old]

Dear PCCLIST readers,



I think Jessica's question is answered in slide 148 from NACO Training, Module 6 -- Describing Works and Expressions (Last update: Apr. 7, 2017), available via https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.loc.gov_catworkshop_courses_naco-2DRDA_index.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=so2LAtqP__sc96sO_PD7vWl797ljUDlHZaFSgL7zbk0&s=11qoZx3qQv0K5EGo9KMeoxCELT_f65SoEgwpBA-QfkM&e= .  It has "Short stories. Selections" in the AAP along with various titles in the VAPs, plus the comment "This AACR2 heading cannot be used as an RDA authorized access point because it represents different aggregate works."



The NAR to which Jessica refers, no 98029419, is coded Rules c (AACR2).  It looks like creation of a new NAR, with a qualifier appended to "Poems. Selections", would be appropriate. Then you would remove this field

4001 Sitwell, Edith, ǂd 1887-1964. ǂt Poems new and old

from no 98029419.  



Perhaps also a 667 "Formerly on …" would be included in the new NAR.  The existing one is indeed undifferentiated, although there's no MARC coding equivalent to that used for undifferentiated personal names that can be used.  I wonder whether procedures need to be clarified to accommodate this point.  Or whether I'm mistaken in some respect.



Sincerely - Ian



Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University

703-993-2938

[log in to unmask]