This terminology (e.g. North American edition) is not a creation or convention of serials catalogers. It is a practice developed by publishers to distinguish different journals which they publish. The edition statements usually appear on the issues themselves. As such, they are a very logical element to use when assembling AAPs for such closely related works. In this case, I don’t think there’s a need to replace something supplied by the publisher with something made up by a cataloger. Rather, I think it’s more a case of a beast that is not always familiar to those who don’t work with serials a lot.
If you’d like to see a truly absurd example, browse the title ‘B.F. Goodrich citizen’ in WorldCat. There are nearly two dozen employee newsletters all with the same title, but largely, if not completely different content. You’ll see that each bibliographic record bears a 250 field which was used in the construction of a uniform title for the particular newsletter.
Hope this helps,
David Procházka | Music/Special Materials Cataloger | The University of Akron | University Libraries | Bierce 261C | Akron, Ohio 44325-1712 | 330-972-6260 | [log in to unmask]
Indeed I was thinking along the line of “work” and “expression” dichotomy and assuming that all these language editions “China reconstructs” must have come from one single work (“a distinct intellectual … creation). It is good to know how the word “edition” in this case is used by serials catalogers to represent work. It’s easy to make one wonder though if it would be done somewhat differently under RDA in terms of constructing AAPs and differentiating these editions with matching authority records.
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.).
University of Washington Libraries
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.
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.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
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.
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.
University of Washington Libraries
“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 & 22.214.171.124, 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?