I’m glad to know I haven’t lost my mind (at least not entirely.)
I do think it would be nice to adopt verbiage more like LAC, though, particularly since in the Beta RDA, the lack of structure will make things more confusing. Even in chapter 6, it is only clearly talking about authorized access points if you go back and read the beginning of the chapter. When you’re looking for something else and stumble across this (as I was) it’s already confusing enough. Once things are no longer organized into chapters, it will be even more confusing. LAC’s clarification may be technically unnecessary, but it does clarify to the person stumbling across this instruction without thinking of authority at the moment that it is talking about authorized access points, not transcribed titles.
This is in PSs for chapter 6, which is about describing works and expressions and creating access points for them. It isn’t about transcribing titles proper from title pages or other sources for manifestation information, which goes in the 245 field.
These instructions are used for the 130 and 240 fields in MARC records (also 630, 730, 830 and title portions of works in other 6XX, 7XX, and 8XX fields) and of course for formulating work access points in authority records.
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Salisbury, Preston <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 1:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Initial articles question
I was looking through some PCC policy statements and I found this to be of interest: PCC policy statement for 184.108.40.206 instructs the application of the alternative, which is to “omit initial articles unless a title for work is to be accessed under that article.”
To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall ever seeing a PCC record which did not include an initial article in the 245 field. I’m quite certain this must only be referencing the 240 field, in which case perhaps the policy statement of LAC “omit initial articles when recording the preferred title for the work in an authorized access point” would be a better way to communicate the information (and would be in line with current practice).
Am I completely off base and have I been wrongly including articles in records all this time, or do we just need to word this statement in a less confusing way? Or does our coding the articles as non-filing characters fulfill the directions? Given that examples in other policy statements (for example, the policy statement for 220.127.116.11, but I have seen others) include an article within the filing characters, there seems to be a bit of confusion here.
Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
P.O. Box 5408
Mississippi State, MS 39762