Quickly changing catalog rules based on often abstruse theoretical considerations + easy access to shared catalog records = this, inevitably, I’d say.
I was just curious and did a quick search (by combining “& [name of a language]” in uniform title with “rda” as a keyword) in our local database. I found quite a few such headings indeed. Apparently it’s not just that some catalogers are re-using old headings, but that they continue creating new ones.
Here’s an example: (OCoLC)890792787. It has been updated several times since 2014. There are 100 holding institutions in GLIMIR cluster. The authorized access point itself is not established, clearly, but the fact that the mistake is there, having escaped the notice of so many pairs of eyes, is little short of embarrassing.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 7:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Updating UT/expression language authorities
I've been seeing a lot of RDA records with 130 [title].$l [language 1] & [language 2] authorities attached of late. I can't tell you how sad this makes me.
My sense of the matter of updating these records is to create a new authority for each language if it doesn't yet exist in the AF, and request cancellation of original. Is this correct?
I looked high and low for official documentation, and the closest I came was a PCC list thread from 2013, which confirmed my assumption, but the smart money says, "Ask first, then do the work."
Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger
Berkeley, CA 94720
If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts.
If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants