RDA 126.96.36.199 has this exception for sacred works:
In some cases, reference sources that deal with the religious group to which the sacred work belongs (e.g., works of the Baha’i Faith) attribute a work accepted as sacred scripture to a single person. When this occurs, construct the authorized access point representing the work by combining:
a) the authorized access point representing the person responsible for creating the work (see 9.19.1)
b) a preferred title for work (see 6.23.2).
Baháʾuʾlláh, 1817–1892. Kitāb al-aqdas
Authorized access point representing the work for: Kitāb al-aqdas / taʾlīf Mirzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī al-maʿrūf bi-Bahāʾ Allāh ; maʿa muqaddimah li-nāshirihi Khaddūrī Ilyās ʿInāyat
Hubbard, L. Ron (La Fayette Ron), 1911–1986. Introduction to Scientology Ethics
Authorized access point representing the work for: Introduction to Scientology Ethics / L. Ron Hubbard
Moon, Sun Myung. Wŏlli haesŏl
Authorized access point representing the work for: Wŏlli haesŏl. Written by Sun Myung Moon
The authority record for the free-floating subdivision $v Commentaries says:
185 ǂv Commentaries
680 ǂi Use as a form subdivision under uniform titles of sacred works for commentaries on those works.
I don’t interpret the phrase “uniform titles of sacred works” to mean that this is limited to works named solely by title (630 as a subject). We used the term “uniform title” in AACR2 to mean approximately the same as “authorized access point for work/expression” in RDA. That is, I think the “uniform title” for the Bahai holy book is Baháʾuʾlláh, 1817–1892. Kitāb al-aqdas. The language in the SHM really needs to be brought up to date to our descriptive standards and terminology. In this case, I would propose changing the scope note to: Use as a form subdivision under authorized access points of sacred works for commentaries on those works.
University of Washington Libraries
Wow, I would have to say this would have to be one of the very few exceptions. And I am wondering if the architects of H1188 had this type of added entries in mind.
Under H1155.8 (Literary works entered under title), we find: “Headings for literary works entered directly under uniform title, including anonymous and multi-authored works …. For free-floating subdivisions used under the uniform titles of sacred works, see H 1188 (noteworthy cross reference, as they both seem to refer to title entries only).” Under H1188, there is no qualifier directly before “under uniform title,” presumably because it is not needed?
If “Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas. $v Commentaries” stands, the following subject headings will have to be valid also:
Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas. $x Commentaries $x History and criticism
Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas. $x Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas. $x Criticism, interpretation, etc. $x History and criticism
In the NAF, subdivisions of this type often are given a 680 field note, saying: “Use as a topical subdivision under uniform titles of sacred works.” My original understanding was that here by “under uniform titles” it refers to 630 and not 600. But your excellent example has presented us with a real challenge.
Not all sacred works are title only. There are some that are author/title, e.g. Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas. So for these, $v Commentaries is a valid construction in LCSH.
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 9:38:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Form subdivision--Commentaries
“--the proper solution is to mark the subdivision usage itself as invalid”
Yes, I agree, if the commonly used subject validation program could detect it, for instance, if “600” present, then “$v Commentaries” is invalid. My point is, as thousands of new bib records enter OCLC daily and then pass onto thousands of individual institutions, would it be possible for OCLC/FAST to catch and mark them as questionable or invalid (thus no ‡2 fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723)? One would think it would be both efficient and economical to do so. Otherwise, the effort would be thousand fold more expensive.
I think one thing that contributes this problem is that people assume a subject heading string is valid if it is controllable in OCLC. The subdivision authority record for Commentaries includes a 073 field relating it to SHM 1188 (Sacred works), but unfortunately the authority records for sacred works don’t have coding to match up with this. OCLC can’t tell what is a heading for a sacred work, so it allows the subdivision to be applied more broadly than is appropriate.
Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian
Law Library · University of California · Irvine
The automated FAST generation in OCLC relies on the subject headings being correct. This is not a special issue with the term Commentaries; it is a problem with every subject heading which is incorrect or invalid. As you point out, the system cannot tell whether a wide range of subdivisions are used correctly. There is no good reason to single out the FAST term Commentaries for special attention and work-arounds for correction. If there is a way to detect that a subdivision is used incorrectly, then the proper solution is not to have a work-around fix for the FAST terms--the proper solution is to mark the subdivision usage itself as invalid. If that cannot be done in a practical way, then there is also no practical way to detect it for the FAST generation.
I need to point this out because lately I have been seeing “655 #7 Commentaries. ‡2 fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723” generated for faulty subject headings everywhere, after names (600), name/titles (600), secular literary works (630), non-literary works (630). Or has there been a policy change on the use of “$v Commentaries” recently that I am unaware of?
Under SHM H1188 [Sacred works], there is an A-Z list of subdivisions that can be assigned. This is the only place we find the form subdivision $v Commentaries. That is to say, “$v Commentaries” can only be used for sacred works entered under the title in the bib (630 0 [Title]). For secular literary works (whether entered under title or author), there is a different list (H1155.8). Neither “$v Commentaries” nor “$x Criticism and interpretation” can be used for a work that is a commentary on such works.
Now, It’s understandable that the machine cannot tell if “630 00 Anacreontea ‡v Commentaries” is valid or not. But what about “600 00 Aristotle $v Commentaries” or “Aristotle. $t Poetics. $v Commentaries”? Would it be too difficult for OCLC to catch this type of mistakes and not to generate “655 #7 Commentaries. ‡2 fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723” automatically? Because, by definition, this form subdivision applies only to sacred works.
Just an observation.