Print

Print


Yang,

My original point, before the extended conversation about LC’s and CONSER’s policies, was that those policies say you don’t have to create authority records in these situations. There is no policy that says you can’t create the records if you need them (e.g. to authorize an access point in a monograph record, or if you need a record for your own catalog, or for any other reason).

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: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 1:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NACO Serial titles

Thanks a lot, Mary and John, for taking the time to answer my questions! I am grateful to you both, and also to Robert, for pointing me to the right place (DCMZ1, Introduction). Since it’s a well-established practice among CONSER catalogers, further attempts to wrestle with and question its validity would be inappropriate.

After reading the 3 basic situations for NACO titles (follow John’s link to FAQ on Uniform Titles, under Question 1), it occurs to me that there are many instances when references (VAP) are needed, e.g., variant titles (acronyms, foreign titles, earlier or later titles), translated titles, titles that look like geographical names/established corporate bodies/other established titles). Let me stick to my favorite and simplest form of example.  When a resource is a translation, a cataloger’s instinct is to trace the original title for the basis of the AAP in 130 (or 100) and provide a reference in 430 (or 400). Am I correct to assume that a 130 access point in a CONSER record even trumps that?!

The two OCLC serial bib records I cited in a previous message, one with a qualifier (2017) in 130 and the other with ($l Spanish), seem to confirm this suspicion of mine. These records contain access points that can be considered self-referential and quite capable of “authenticating” themselves:

130 0   Federal student aid at a glance. $l Spanish
245 10 Resumen sobre la ayuda federal para estudiantes.

245 here would be equivalent to a 430 in an authority record. Thus no NACO work is needed. That is also why the two examples given under LC/PCC PS for RDA1.6.2 have no authority records in NAF.  Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks to you all, I made myself read DCMZ1 Introduction several times carefully and benefitted a lot from it. As a bonus, the last paragraph of the Introduction really made me smile. It begins with “LC music cataloging practice: As of August 16, 1999, authority records are created for ALL title and name/title headings.” I wish it would happen to serial cataloging in a not-too-distant future.

Sincerely,

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO Serial titles

Yang,

It was, and still is (I believe) a well-established practice not to create a SAR, generally, when a CONSER record exists. The instruction that Robert Rendall cites below can be found at

DCMZ1 > Introduction > Should an SAR be made? > (2)

It includes an exception that explains why SARs are sometimes made anyway—often, as Robert suggests, the library is cataloging a single theme issue but isn’t collecting the periodical.  In such a case, the library doesn’t have a good basis for creating a serial record, or sufficient incentive to.  Or, the serial may straddle a fuzzy line between analyzable periodical and monographic series, i.e. it could be understood as either one, perhaps depending on which issue is viewed if the publication is in the process of evolving.  So, one library makes a CONSER record while another makes an SAR; we can hope that the bibliographic record and the authority record have the same AAP, but especially in edge cases the cataloger does not always think to check.  (See the 667 note in ARN 3483199, your first example, which may be a good example of both situations.)  These are the exceptions, which may shed some light on why serial catalogers prefer to avoid doubling up with CONSER records and authority records for the same work.

AAPs for periodicals/serials show up in links all over the place, so whenever a change occurs to one, all those links have to be located and adjusted too.  If a periodical/serial or series changes its title, any corresponding SAR or CONSER record must be identified and the earlier/later relationships recorded there too.  It’s a lot of file maintenance, but if it isn’t done, chaos ensues.  The fixed fields SrTp (bib) and Series (aut) are essential here, because when coded correctly they give a clue to search for the other type of record for the same resource.

I know that, in RDA theory, bibliographic records and authority records cannot be equivalent because they exist at different WEMI levels.  LRM may address this difficulty with WEMI and serials in practice.  I’m hopeful …

For why there are still so many non-RDA AAPs on CONSER records, see:

Z1 > 1XX > SARs > Establishing an SAR access point > 4b

I see that my colleague John Hostage has also responded to this thread.  I’ll Send now and go see what he said; it’ll be good (and more succinct)!

Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
Harvard Library


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NACO Serial titles

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 11:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<tel:(801)%20422-5568>

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 8:08:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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