There's a difference between undifferentiated authorities for personal names and for collective work titles.  Two persons with the same name may have nothing else in common aside from a relatively arbitrary name string. There's usually not much to be said about both persons beyond, "they have the same name."

Two works or expressions represented by the same work or expression title, e.g., for translations or collective titles, may have a great deal in common. Two translations into Englishof Anna Karenina are the same novel in the same language with the same characters and the same setting and the same plot, etc. Two collections of selected stories by an author have in common the author, the literary form, being selected from a common pool of the complete short stories, etc. While a user looking for works by a person likely has interest only in that one person and not in works by other persons of the same name, a person looking for a translation of Anna Karenina or for a collection of stories by Eudora Welty may be quite happy to look at all the library has to offer under an undifferentiated access point for such resources.

I agree that under RDA, these access points do not represent particular RDA works or expressions. What we need is either a way to acknowledge such useful access points with identifying them as access points for specific RDA works and expressions, or a way to ensure users' access to the library's resources collectively via categories such as language, form, "selected-ness," etc. If appropriately designated vocabulary terms were accessible for faceting, that could replace the need for these kinds of undifferentiated access point strings.

Stephen

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello everyone,

Thanks Mark and Ian for your comments. I want to reiterate that it seems extremely clear that according to RDA the AACR2 compliant records with multiple 400s representing different aggregate works are invalid and new records need to be created, analogous to the undifferentiated NARs for personal names. However, I am surprised about the lack of documentation about the actual procedures for dealing with this. For personal names there is a ton of extremely detailed information. For work/expression records there seems to be no documentation at all.

I plan on forging ahead and in the case of Poems New & Old I will make a new work record for it and delete it from the AACR2 Poems. Selections record. Beyond that I'm really not sure what would be helpful in terms of adding or not adding notes.

Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV] On Behalf Of Scharff, Mark
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] naco question [now Poems New & Old]

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]GOV] 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]GOV] 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]




--
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
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242