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 & 18.104.22.168, 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?