Print

Print


Just a question here.  Do "sketches" refer to physical art or to "sketches"
of his music.  The scope note for Musical sketches is: Here are entered
tentative drafts or preliminary studies, in manuscript, facsimile or
transcription, for musical works.
Scope note too clear here does it also refer to studies about musical
works.  I would have thought it would only refer to the music.

In any case, why not replace Sketches with Musical sketches in the
authority records, using he term from LCSH ?

Gene Fieg

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I would like to add a note here.
>
>
>
> There is an important distinction between the generic uniform titles such
> as “$t Works. $k Selections” (without any qualifier) and those with
> distinct qualifiers. The former cannot be used to identify a specific work
> or even be used as a subject heading in a bib, while the latter can.
>
>
>
> Consider the following:
>
>
>
> 1) Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‡d 1770-1827. ‡t Works. ‡k Selections
>
> 2) Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‡d 1770-1827. ‡t Works. ‡k Selections (Sketches)
>
> 3) Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‡d 1770-1827. ‡t Works. ‡k Selections (Sketches
> : Beethoven sketchbook series)
>
> 4) Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‡d 1770-1827. ‡t Works. ‡k Selections (Sketches
> : Beethoven-Haus (Bonn, Germany))
>
>
>
> Users looking for Beethoven’s sketchbooks are well served with headings
> like 2)-4) [in addition to: Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‡d 1770-1827 ‡v
> Notebooks, sketchbooks, etc.].
>
>
>
> Likewise, those who want to read book reviews or other types of secondary
> literature on any of these particular publications can look for them under
> subject headings, if assigned.
>
>
>
> While it is useful to class aggregates together by assigning the
> undifferentiated “Works. Selections,” it is not really a preferred title
> per se. The differentiated ones (2-3), on the other, are truly preferred
> titles, each being “the basis for the authorized access point for that
> work” (RDA 5.3.1).
>
>
>
> Yang
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Hearn
> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 1:48 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] naco question [now Poems New & Old]
>
>
>
> 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]]
> 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]]
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 <(612)%20625-2328>
>
> Fx: 612-625-3428 <(612)%20625-3428>
>
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>