Print

Print


The important point is that Works. Selections (or Poems. Selections) needs a qualifier at the WORK level. There are multiple selections, and each selection, per RDA is its own aggregate work. Further disambiguation at the expression level might not be needed. It helps to imagine the selecting happening *before* the translation (even if that’s not how it actually happened in real life). For example, there was likely only 1 expression of this particular selection. But, if the exact same selection of content was translated by two different translators, then yes, you would have to add a $s for translator (or something else like date if you didn’t know the translator). There is probably nothing wrong with adding extra expression elements once you’re already at the expression level, but the point is that you don’t have to if there is no conflict at the expression level.

Jessica

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 2:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [External] Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Steve, in the second to last citation is Echevarria the translator, publisher?
In a translation wouldn't we still use $l [language] $s [version]?

Gene Fieg

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:03 AM McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
RDA 6.27.1.9 says, “Include additional elements in authorized access points if needed to distinguish the access point for a work.”  It does not explicitly prohibit qualifiers if there is no current conflict.  It can be argued whether the prohibition is implied.  It is LC-PCC PS which explicitly states, “Do not predict a conflict.”  This is in keeping with legacy practice.

The Beta Toolkit says something a bit different:
Additional elements and designations in access points for work
Include values for other elements or designations in an access point if required:
·        to distinguish the access point from a value of an access point for another entity
·        to assist in the identification of the entity
·        to conform to a string encoding scheme

So under the Beta Toolkit, LC-PCC would definitely be free to have a policy which requires a qualifier for all work AAPs of conventional collective titles.

                                                                                Steve McDonald
                                                                                [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [External] Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Unlike for names, RDA’s general instructions for work access points (6.27.1) lack an Optional Addition that allows for qualifiers in cases where no conflict exists.  Compare to, say, RDA 9.19.1.4’s Optional Addition on attaching a fuller form of name to a base heading for identification purposes, not for conflict.  (My thanks to Adam Schiff for pointing this out a few years ago.)

Not that this has prevented catalogers from building work access points with extra bells and whistles.  There are plenty of 130s in bib records for films where “(Motion picture)” is tethered to very unique titles, some of these also established in the NAF.  RDA 2020 for its part is open to such discretionary additions: “Include values for other elements or designations in an access point if required … to assist in the identification of the entity”:
https://beta.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-f1aeca83-e610-3202-8706-bdfeb9975449#division_rdaId_div_ydt_4pc_vfb<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__beta.rdatoolkit.org_Content_Index-3FexternalId-3Den-2DUS-5Fala-2Df1aeca83-2De610-2D3202-2D8706-2Dbdfeb9975449-23division-5FrdaId-5Fdiv-5Fydt-5F4pc-5Fvfb&d=DwMFaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=PaUd_NA7kOEx9EXt2bho3plJTt9etd5yo_oRblEartE&s=jKGxTZj9KfjW1qsqCoMqT3c-Y8_5L0EhSNfIF6RmxlA&e=>

--
Mark K. Ehlert                                 Alma: NA02
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian          Primo: MT NA01
O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library, University of St. Thomas
<http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stthomas.edu_libraries_&d=DwMFaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=PaUd_NA7kOEx9EXt2bho3plJTt9etd5yo_oRblEartE&s=PF1qoOF3iDmjv-3vN0UUzevLAKGJySMQmu-iokZPc7Y&e=>>

  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [External] Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Jessica, I agree, except for “… unless there is only 1 selection.” Would it be better to qualify the very first compilation of Selections (even if it seems to be no other exists at the time of cataloging) as a preemptive measure? This would prevent the heading “Works. Selections” from being used accidentally or deliberately again and again. Translations of such compilations should be qualified at the work-level first, especially with prolific authors. The “Catalan” and “Czech” versions are good enough, but they run the risk of being misused in foreseeable future. By adding $s (…) to differentiate would cause further problems.

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Yang, many of these unqualified headings are the AACR2 headings that were programmatically coded to RDA that I have been complaining about. The fact that they are coded RDA doesn’t mean that they are correctly constructed. In RDA, Selections always needs a qualifier unless there is only 1 selection, and with someone like Rilke we know there have been numerous selections.

Jessica

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Here’s a segment of Rilke’s name/title headings. All of them are coded RDA. Apparently cataloging practices vary, even on matters of principle. The two with the qualifiers (…) are “finely tuned” and exemplary at several levels. In the proposed upcoming presentation by Bob, Adam, and Paul, I certainly hope see a further clarification on this.

[cid:[log in to unmask]]

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 10:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Honestly, I’ve assumed they’re basically there for catalogers and well-trained public service librarians.  They do preserve information that can be imparted by staff less formally (i.e. understandably) to users.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Richard Murray
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 8:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

I do wonder how much of a purpose these ultra-fine distinctions are serving if even WE have to struggle to figure them out sometimes.

Rich



Rich Murray
Principal Cataloger
Catalog Librarian for Spanish and Portuguese Languages | Rare Books | Sequential Art
Duke University Libraries
Durham, North Carolina, USA
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6507-026X<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Forcid.org-252F0000-2D0001-2D6507-2D026X-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpete.wilson-2540VANDERBILT.EDU-257C56b1b3013e7341c34f4c08d7799362e9-257Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad-257C0-257C0-257C637111546241644131-26sdata-3D7vACvaO71318Wav2oGHLiB2WdyYy-252BLoDOry6yQ0iBJA-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3DimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3DsyBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw%26m%3DHyH33wFlKcQ7y-nu6-JaF_DSwteOgRJGZzJixzquYrE%26s%3DXcSje_WmZq7hqbSbcpM-9cnW7Qbk5nPeVWBqRn25df4%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cehle0001%40STTHOMAS.EDU%7Cf7fb5ec0b7874b5f2d9708d779ad7871%7Ca081ff79318c45ec95f338ebc2801472%7C1%7C0%7C637111658278207071&sdata=TfBRqCV0PGwLM2rHeHg15KX4pAKpxNlkAO%2F3Ok26FWc%3D&reserved=0> |  http://viaf.org/viaf/119627525<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fviaf.org-252Fviaf-252F119627525-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpete.wilson-2540VANDERBILT.EDU-257C56b1b3013e7341c34f4c08d7799362e9-257Cba5a7f39e3be4ab3b45067fa80faecad-257C0-257C0-257C637111546241654128-26sdata-3D3L0oFi88-252BG191qcevH3ff6oI539HWYTnN4ecp-252Fw-252BDg0-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3DimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3DsyBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw%26m%3DHyH33wFlKcQ7y-nu6-JaF_DSwteOgRJGZzJixzquYrE%26s%3DOxEIC7ZZ_UR91FRzi6iw324Avn55k9jDpkr7OsHL-yc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cehle0001%40STTHOMAS.EDU%7Cf7fb5ec0b7874b5f2d9708d779ad7871%7Ca081ff79318c45ec95f338ebc2801472%7C1%7C0%7C637111658278217073&sdata=nGs9jArGXuFyKto%2FytlwmVItDq41Gql4fq6UiNPvPtY%3D&reserved=0>



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 2:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

Because in MARC 21, work qualifiers are not put in separate subfields from the work access point.  Qualifiers for works include form of work, date of work, place of creation of work, and other distinguishing characteristic of work.  We don't separately subfield any of those qualifiers.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries