Print

Print


Thanks, Adam and Bob!

 

Honestly, the first thing I noticed in Adam’s response is the added punctuation before the date: 100 0_ ǂa Virgil. ǂt Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte). $f 2019, which I had obviously missed!

 

And yes indeed, the instruction is in RDA E.1.2.5 (a line or two before E.1.2.5.1): “Precede these elements by a full stop and a space: content type, date of expression, language of expression.” My fault—I should have read the entire section more carefully. By the way, in the example of

 

100 1_ ǂa Langland, William, ǂd 1330?-1400? ǂt Piers Plowman ǂs (A-text). ǂl English ǂs (Covella)

 

is “ǂs (A-text)” merely a “distinguishing characteristic of expression” or is it a “content type”? Could you please include this example in Module#6 in near future?

 

Since I have Conte’s new text in hand, I am planning to create a name/title authority record shortly, using the existing heading already in the bib record (OCoLC 1080246114), which Bob has also recommended. The other heading (see above) will be a 400 reference.

 

Best regards,

 

Yang

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Dates of works/expressions used as qualifiers

 

I figured Adam would respond so I’ll just add, the rules for punctuation of work and expression access points are from RDA appendix E, Record syntaxes for access point control, which govern things like “put a period in front of the date of expression element”. I believe these are based on ISBD but can’t put my finger on that. And unfortunately these appendixes appear to be omitted from the beta version of RDA, so we may in the future be faced with the prospect of saying “well we put a period in front of the date in an expression access point … because that’s what we do”—not a very satisfying thought. Since we’re going to continue to need access to these punctuation rules maybe PCC will have to incorporate Appendixes D and E into the policy statements -- ?  

 

Additionally, I’d comment that if given a choice like this between date (2019) or other distinguishing characteristic (Second edition) I’d personally always choose the latter over date. I don’t think dates of publication in access points (date of work/date of expression) are very meaningful to most of our users, whereas most would understand what “second edition” means and find it useful in identifying which expression they want.

 

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 <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dates of works/expressions used as qualifiers

 

The qualifiers in work access points are not separately subfielded, and are included in parentheses:

 

130 _0 $a Harlow (Motion picture : 1965 : Segal)

130 _0 $a Harlow (Motion picture : 1965 : Douglas)

130 0_ $a Plato (Essays : Vlastos)

100 1_ $a Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. $t Miss Lulu Bett (Novel)

100 1_ $a Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. $t Miss Lulu Bett (Play)

 

However, for an expression access point, expression elements are separately subfielded. Date of expression is recorded in $f.  So this expression access point should be, I believe,

 

100 0_ ǂa Virgil. ǂt Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte). $f 2019

 

This access point is correct, because both qualifiers represent the element "other distinguishing characteristic of expression" and that element is recorded in $s. $s is repeatable when something else separate the two other distinguishing characteristics, but they are recorded in a single $s when they are adjacent to each other:

 

100 0_ ǂa Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte : Second edition)

 

An example of when $s would be repeated (once NACO implements the repeatable $s) is:

 

100 1_ ǂa Langland, William, ǂd 1330?-1400? ǂt Piers Plowman ǂs (A-text). ǂl English ǂs (Covella)

 

(However, at present the second other distinguishing element has been put in $g:

 

100 1_ ǂa Langland, William, ǂd 1330?-1400? ǂt Piers Plowman ǂs (A-text). ǂl English ǂg (Covella)

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 10:23:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Dates of works/expressions used as qualifiers

 

Hi all,

 

Gian Biagio Conte’s  second edition of Virgil’s Aeneis text came out earlier this year, replacing his 2009 edition. BTW, both editions were published by De Gruyter, in the Teubner series. It is quite unusual to see a 2nd edition of a such a key text so soon. At any rate, a new bib description is order.

 

There is an OCLC bib record (OCoLC 1080246114; lccn  2019936563), coded at LEVEL K. The 100/240 has:

 

100 0#  Virgil, ǂe author.

240 10  Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte : Second edition)

 

The name/title is not in NAF yet. Since the AAP for the 2009 edition is in NAF (no2014129793), adding “Second edition” as part of the qualifier would clearly set them apart.

 

The edition statement of “Editio altera” is on t.p. On p. ix, Conte intriguingly entitles the preface as “Ad lectorem (MMXIX) [= To reader (2019)],” in which he gives a number of reasons why he needed to “renew” it (ut … textum Aeneidos renouarem)… including his own advanced age (ego, iam aetate provectus). I was just wondering if we could also consider this alternative:   

 

100 0#  Virgil. ǂt Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte : 2019)

 

This formulation is chiefly based 1) on the syntax recommended in RDA E.1.2.5, namely, all qualifying elements are put inside the parentheses, and 2) that the date of expression is a core element, whereas “editio altera” is not.

 

But in MARC format, we are supposed to use $f (for expressions), hence,

 

100 0#  Virgil. ǂt Aeneis. ǂl Latin ǂs (Conte) ǂf 2019

 

In NACO training module #6 (Slide 147), one reads “Note that when qualifying by a date at the work level, the qualifier is in parentheses with no subfield coding. For qualifying by date at the expression level, see below at slide 156.”  Slides 168-169 show that a plain $f [year] is used, but mostly for collective titles.

 

My question is:  do you perceive a contradiction or discrepancy at least between this RDA instruction and the use of $f in MARC 21. Why could we stick to one guideline and one syntax in constructing qualifiers, includes dates. Here are some excellent examples in the NACO training module #6 for AAPs representing works (emphasis on core elements: title, form, date, other characteristics):  

 

130 _0   $a Harlow (Motion picture : 1965 : Segal)

130 _0  $a Harlow (Motion picture : 1965 : Douglas)

130 0_  $a Plato (Essays : Vlastos)

100 1_ $a Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. $t Miss Lulu Bett (Novel)

100 1_ $a Gale, Zona, $d 1874-1938. $t Miss Lulu Bett (Play)

 

Personally I would like to see dates in parentheses. Please comment!

 

Best regards,

 

Yang