Robert,

 

Thanks a lot! The DCMZ1 statement is indeed very clear on this. But it is my understanding that it chiefly applies to title main entries in 245 or name/title entries in 100/245. For example, when we create an authority record for a translation, often we don’t need to create a 100/240 for the author’s original work by itself, or a 130 for a title main entry representing work, at the same time, if the work is represented by a bib record (with a 100/245 combination or a straightforward 245). If a CONSER bib record has “China reconstructs” in 245, we could use it elsewhere in 730 (provided that we don’t  code the bib pcc) for an added entry or in a 130 for title part of a translation ($l Arab or $l Chinese, as I cited from OCLC earlier). I understand that part without any problem.

 

What I find baffling is the lack of authority work for 130s in NAF. If 130 truly represents an authorized access point, why is not necessary to NACO it in the first place? If CONSER bib records are supposed to perform a double duty of giving bib description and providing [authorized] access points, I wish I could find a source document where such policies are clearly stated. Was it a well-established practice? Or still is (Cf. OCLC#10252464 and 10506080)?  

 

Best regards,

 

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Rendall
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 5:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Serial titles

 

The original question was: why has "China reconstructs" been used as an access point in all sorts of PCC records although there is no title authority record for it in the NAF?  And what access point should be used to represent the serial in the record for the textbook "New gateway to Chinese"?

The Introduction to DCM Z1 describes when a title or name/title authority record must be created.  One of the conditions is: "the authorized access point is needed for a related work access point or subject entry and the related work is not represented by a bibliographic record in the LC database, or, for serials, by a CONSER record in OCLC."

So the existence of CONSER record LCCN 54043904, with the unqualified AAP "China reconstructs," means you can use that access point whenever you need to refer in another record to that exact publication (the one in English that was published from 1952 to 1989).  Its relationship to other serial titles is handled by linking fields in the CONSER record.  A separate NAR doesn't have to be created unless it's needed for other reasons.


Robert Rendall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries

102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027

tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167

 

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yang,

 

The construction China today (Beijing, China : 1990 : English ed.) does NOT represent a translation, it represents what serials catalogers refer to as language editions.  In other words, the English edition of China today is in English, but the contents are not necessarily translations from the Chinese or other language editions (LCCN 90656111 indicates that in addition to an English edition, there are Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish editions.  There is also a “North American edition”.)  “English ed.” is clearly not a valid RDA form since abbreviations wouldn’t be used for “edition”, but it represents an other distinguishing characteristic of work in this case.   I don’t think there actually is a separate work that would be called China today (Beijing, China : 1990).  The serial record in OCLC that has that access point is actually the North American edition, and the CONSER record for this same edition has a 130 China today (Beijing, China : 1990 : North American ed.).

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NACO Serial titles

 

Thank you so much for your thoughtful advice, Bob! 

 

Based on my searches in OCLC and other online sources, I am inclined to think that I could create a new work-level record with “China reconstructs” as an AAP.  For support, I cite the following 2 access points (representing expression) formulated by LC:

 

130  0 China reconstructs. $l Arabic (LC 85649504; OCLC 12531788)

130  0 China reconstructs. $l Chinese (LC 84649045; OCLC 11406968)

 

Also, there’s a subseries authority record in OCLC that has the main title in 430: 

 

130  0 What’s new in China (LCCN 88628438; ARN 02254282)

430  0 China reconstructs. $p What’s new in China

 

So far so good. For me, however, a true “sticking point” is this. “China reconstructs” was succeeded by “China today” in 1990. At this point, naturally, it would be helpful to connect the two as related works. There are two serial bibliographic records that have slightly different 130s.

 

130     China today (Beijing, China : 1990) (LC 90656111; OCLC 21007118)

130     China today (Beijing, China : 1990 : English ed.) (LC 90656111; OCLC 21007118)

 

The form of the first 130 seems familiar to me, as it looks more like a work-level AAP. I am not so sure about the second 130, because it includes a language attribute in the qualifier.  It would look awkward, if it were used to represent the work somewhere else (i.e., for an expression) and have further language attributes ($l Arabic or $l Chinese or $l English?!). 

 

Yes, knowing that I have already gone this far and for fear of being accused of not going far enough, now I am trying to seek help for creating two authority records in tandem.  In all sincerity, I hope I am not trespassing.

 

Further comments and suggestions are most welcome.

 

Best regards,

 

Yang

PUL 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 5:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Serial titles

 

Adam has stated his own institution’s policy, but I don’t think it is correct to say that CONSER catalogers will “solely” take care of this. The rules for qualification of a AAP representing a work in RDA are the same no matter what the format, so if you need an AAP representing a serial work for a BIBCO record you’re creating you as a NACO cataloger already know the rules and so you can create one.

 

The one possible sticking point is that the CONSER record is supposed to remain in synch with the NACO authority file, so if the CONSER record doesn’t have the AAP on it (or the newly minted AAP doesn’t match the 245 subfield $a in a CONSER record lacking a 130) then you need to work with a CONSER member to have the record adjusted. If you find an AAP (e.g. in a 130) already on a CONSER record you can certainly create an authority record corresponding to it if you need to use it in a bib record you’re creating.

 

Obviously we all need to work together and cooperate, but as far as I know there are no NACO rules that say non-CONSER NACO members cannot create NARs representing serial works.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 10:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NACO Serial titles

 

Thanks for your very kind and diplomatic reply, Adam!

 

To me, the poignant phrase here is “RDA access point.” Looking at the two serial bib records, China reconstructs ((OCoLC)ocm01554324) and China today ((OCoLCocm29199718), I notice that they are indeed not coded RDA (without $e rda in 040, without 336-338), even though these two pcc records have been revised constantly and perhaps multiple times (latest revisions: 2017-10 and 2017-12 respectively) since the inception of RDA.

 

Well, at least, it’s good to know that CONSER catalogers will solely take care of it, if necessary.

 

Best regards,

 

Yang

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 11:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Serial titles

 

In a situation like this, we ask our CONSER catalogers to determine the RDA access point for the serial and they revise the CONSER record(s) if necessary and we then use that access point in the related work added entry on our monograph bib record.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 8:08:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NACO Serial titles

 

“China reconstructs” was a bimonthly (1952-1954) and then monthly (1955-1989, ISSN 1000-2944) published in Beijing, China. There were many concurrently published language editions, including Chinese, English, French, German, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish, etc. In 1990, the title was changed to “China today” (ISSN 1003-9005) in 1990.

Right now I am cataloging a textbook entitled “New Gateway to Chinese”—a compilation of 24 Chinese language lessons—gleaned from the “Language Corner” Section of that periodical from July 1972 through 1973. I would like to provide an access point to the periodical in a 7XX MARC field.  A search in OCLC bib file under “China reconstructs,” however, yields baffling results. It has been used everywhere, 130, 222, 630, 730, etc., and yet the title itself is not in NAF. 

Moreover, there are more than a few different works bearing the same or similar titles (“China reconstructs”, “China today”) in the OCLC bib file, in which case, if I simply put in a “730 China reconstructs,” it would be a violation of RDA 6.1.2 & 6.1.3.1, would it not?

I was just wondering when it would be a good time to start differentiating them and giving them unique authorized access points?  Is this strictly CONSER’s territory? Based on PCC/NACO training modules, Module 6a (Describing series) does seem to have covered the topic of how to treat serials to some extent. So, may BIBCO participants contribute in a situation like this and create an authority record for the work?

Yang

PUL