Print

Print


I started working on upgrading the record to PCC and doing the authority records and elected to go with this for the two works in the compilation:
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Casarès, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections (Camus)
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections (Casarès)

The author of the letters is already explicit in the $a portion of the AAP so no need to repeat in the qualifier. I just put the surname of the addressee in the qualifier.

Here’s one of the authority records:

1001 Camus, Albert, ǂd 1913-1960. ǂt Correspondence. ǂk Selections (Casarès)
380  Letters ǂ2 lcsh
381  Casarès
5001 ǂi Author: ǂa Camus, Albert, ǂd 1913-1960 ǂw r
5001 ǂi Addressee: ǂa Casarès, Maria ǂw r
5001 ǂi Editor: ǂa Vaillant, Béatrice ǂw r

--Ryan

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Behra
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès

One question about this most recent proposal:  shouldn’t the order be reversed for the parenthetical qualification of Selections on the first added entry – that is, for the heading of Casarès, shouldn’t the parenthetical qualification read (Casarès and Camus)?  If the publication in question contains both ends of such correspondence, surely each of the two correspondents should be the first listed in his/her own heading.

Robert Behra

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of "Finnerty, Ryan" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Monday, January 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès


“Would the following combination seem more in the spirit of RDA and helpful for identification?


130 _0 Correspondance, 1944-1959 (Camus and Casarès)
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Casarès, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections (Camus and Casarès)
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections (Camus and Casarès)”

I agree entirely. Since these are two separate works within the larger work, each of them should also have a unique work AAP.

--Ryan

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 8:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès

“… it is considered a compilation of two compilations of the works of one creator.”

Very well said! Should a single letter should considered a creative work, then, a compilation of letters of one person would be considered a larger work by itself as well, would it not? In this particular case, we have a still larger work at hand, “Correspondance, 1944-1959.” Ryan formulated the AAP neatly in response to Stephen’s question (what to use in case there would be a translation of it):

130 _0 Correspondance, 1944-1959 (Camus and Casarès)

It seems to me, however, that everybody here was using subjunctive mood (would, might) as if it were an option, contingent upon whether there would be title conflicts or similar titles in NAF or OCLC. Why can’t we just establish it as such in the first place and let it have a unique identifier (RDA 6.8.1)?

Moreover, I find it difficult to determine the nature of work-to-work relationship, if the following pair of 700s in the same bib record:


700 12 $a Casarès, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections.

700 12 $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections.



The first entry has not been established. The second is in NAF (n 2014019050), but it covers 4 different compilations, none of which is what we have here as a compilation.



Would the following combination seem more in the spirit of RDA and helpful for identification?


130 _0 Correspondance, 1944-1959 (Camus and Casarès)
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Casarès, Maria. $t Correspondence. $k Selections (Camus and Casarès)
700 12 $i Container of (work). $a Camus, Albert, $d 1913-1960. $t Correspondence  $k Selections (Camus and Casarès)

Yang
PUL


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Still Thinking
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès


Well, doesn't this show another weakness of RDA? It seems quite illogical (to me) to enter something like this under title. I was once admonished to stop thinking of 3x5 cards and was reminded that in an electronic database there's not such thing as "main entry" in bold black anymore. If the reasoning behind this is that we have "two works" or "two collections" issued together, then I wonder why the old "three works or more" was changed to "two works or more"??



A few years ago I cataloged an Italian work on the history of a small town/village during WWII. It included the diary of the village priest during that time period--quite large, if I recall. But I was told if I added that as a 700 12, well, then the entire work had to be entered under title because I then had two works issued together. I did so, but it just seemed totally illogical.



I would assume that most collections of someone's correspondence might include letters to him as well, so then should most correspondence be entered under title?? Makes no sense.



Sam Andrusko (retired LC cataloger, speaking only for himself)





________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Finnerty, Ryan <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 5:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Correspondence of Camus and Casarès


Hello PCC List,



Gallimard recently published the correspondence between Albert Camus and Maria Casarès. The book contains letters written by each of them.



Correspondance : 1944-1959 / Albert Camus, Maria Casarès

9782072746161

OCLC# 1010979515



The OCLC record is coded as RDA and it has Camus in the 100 field. In order for Camus to properly be in the 100 field, this would need to be considered a collaborative work (RDA 6.27.1.3).



I’m more of the view that this is a compilation by two different authors since (in my view anyway) each letter can stand on its own as a separate work. If this is the case, then this should be entered under title according to RDA 6.27.1.4.



I looked in OCLC for other RDA records for correspondence and have seen them cataloged both ways with no one way predominating.



What do you all think? Should collections of correspondence between two different people be considered collaborative works or compilations?



Thanks for your advice!



Ryan J. Finnerty | Head, Database and Authorities Management & NACO Coordinator

UC San Diego Library | 9500 Gilman Drive | La Jolla, CA 92093 | MC 0175-K

T: 858.822.3138 | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>