Print

Print


The definition for the element Variant Title for Work is: "A title or form of title by which a work is known that differs from a title or form of title chosen as a preferred title for the work.

Variant title for work includes a title or form of title appearing on a manifestation of the work or found in reference sources, a title resulting from a different transliteration of a title, etc." (RDA 6.2.3.1) These variants can be given access points per RDA 6.27.4.1.

 

These titles are titles that the work may be known by, regardless of its expression. In a well-integrated system that provided the necessary linkages between all of the entities and their descriptive elements, and enabled navigation in all directions throughout the data, it might be sufficient to have an AAP for a specific variant title link only to the specific language expression for which manifestations have ever existed. But since such a system is very rare (if there is one at all), including all of the variant titles on the work level record is quite important. I would think that it would be essential for subject level access.

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Question about two work records: Da xue (n82031679) and Zhong yong (n79068391)

 

Dear PCC colleagues,

Does anyone know why these two work records have SEE references from various other-language expressions of the work? I can't find the rule that justifies doing this.

e.g.:

130  0 Da xue
430  0 Taehak
430  0 Daigaku
430  0 Velikai︠a︡ nauka
430  0 Great learning
430  0 Grande étude
etc., etc.

130  0 Zhong yong
430  0 Chungyong
430  0 Chūyō
430  0 Nauk o sredini
430  0 Doctrine of the mean
430  0 Tchoung ioung
etc. etc.

As you might know, these are two of the "Four books" (Si shu; 四書), Chinese classics of Confucian thought.  The other two are attributed to Confucius and to Mencius, and each of them is entered under the creator's name heading. The one by Confucius represents only the work and its original Chinese-language expression, as I would expect, and other-language expressions of that work are entered variously as:

100 0  Confucius. ǂt Lun yu. ǂl English
100 0  Confucius. ǂt Lun yu. ǂl Japanese
100 0  Confucius. ǂt Lun yu. ǂl Indonesian
etc. etc.

The one by Mencius is a mixture of the two different approaches. The work record seems to represent the original Chinese-language expression and also an English-language expression and a Japanese-language expression:

100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Sayings of Mencius
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mōshi

but there are also other-language expression records, as I would expect to find, e.g.:

100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl English
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl Japanese
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl Korean
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl Russian
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl Latin
100 0  Mencius. ǂt Mengzi. ǂl Portuguese
etc., etc.

Can someone explain what is going with these?  Three of the four work record are RDA, and the other is coded AACR, but I can't remember any reason why you wouldn't have established the other-language expressions separately in AACR either.

Thank you in advance if someone can show me what I'm missing!

Aloha,
Mike Chopey


Michael A. Chopey
Catalog Librarian
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Hamilton 008
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968