I think one problem is the structure of RDA itself. The info is in there, but it is hard to fully connect the dots to determine how to properly construct and qualify access points. It doesn’t help that resources like OCLC bib formats have confusing examples. For example, in the 7xx field help, $f is called “date of work” and has this example: 700 02 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Teresa, ǂc of Avila, Saint, ǂd 1515-1582. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections. ǂl English. ǂf 1998. Yes, that could in fact be valid expression heading if there was only 1 selection of Teresa’s works, but it probably should be ǂa Teresa, ǂc of Avila, Saint, ǂd 1515-1582. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections (1998) ǂl English, which is also an expression heading, but with the work part properly disambiguated. I can’t blame people who see this and follow the format.
Another problem is, as we have discussed, the vast number of AACR2 headings that were converted wholesale to RDA. This gives the impression that those are correctly formatted headings and I assume most people just follow the pattern they see. There is no guidance in any of the NACO training materials or FAQs about how to handle these headings the way there is for personal name headings. This again gives the impression that they are normal, especially given how conditioned we are to *not* change RDA coded headings in the NAF.
A third problem is that the concept of a selection being its own unique aggregate work was a sufficiently new and a radical departure from how uniform titles were constructed in AACR2 that it should have gotten more attention in the early days of training, but for whatever reason it did not. This has lead to the related problem of what are effectively “undifferentiated” Works. Selections headings. You have probably seen them in the NAF, they have a 1xx of Works. Selections and then numerous 4xx’s, all of which represent works with different content. Those were properly constructed in AACR2, but are completely invalid in RDA. Now that they have been programmatically recoded to RDA there is nothing to indicate to catalogers that they should not use those headings. In fact, they give the impression that disambiguating at the work level is optional, or possibly even discouraged!
Is the problem the lack of education or is it a flaw in RDA itself? Why are so many catalogers still not “getting it” this many years into RDA? Was AACR2 this hard to master the equivalent number of years for those originally trained in AACR?
Stephen T. Early
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL 60637
CRL website: www.crl.edu
Unfortunately, many catalogers just still haven’t gotten this change from AACR2 and continue to do it incorrectly. A few times a year I try to correct newly added records like these that were established in the wrong form. We still need to do a better job of educating people on these collective title access points.
University of Washington Libraries
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:43:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Qualifiers for "Selections"
Just one of the many problems with the programmatic wholesale recoding of AACR2 authority records as RDA that has taken place.
The use of parenthethesesl around the qualifier for a work-level access point (e.g. “… Selections (date)” is found in RDA Appendix E.1.1 under “Uniform titles … Additions to uniform titles … Conflict resolution. “ I’m not sure why the parentheticals shown with 6.3 didn’t carry down to 6.4-6.6, but all those types of additions are made in parentheses; and in terms of MARC, with no subfield coding before them.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
That is true, now, under RDA, but a lot of those Wilson, Pete. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2019 style headings were created in AACR2. They were then programmatically recoded as RDA. For Wilson, Pete. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2019 to make sense as an expression heading there would have to be only 1 selection of Pete’s works, but multiple expressions of that 1 selection such that you would need the date to distinguish them.
The first form (date in $f) is an AAP for an Expression. The second form (parenthetical date in $k) is an AAP for a Work.
I got curious about something and looked through the NAF a little at name-title headings that include “Selections.”
I was surprised at how many recently created authorities use this form:
Wilson, Pete. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2019
Wilson, Pete. $t Works. $k Selections (2019)
I thought the question of whether to qualify with an $f subfield or just enclose the qualifier in parentheses in the $k had been fully decided, or as fully as such questions can ever be decided. Is that correct, or is there still a live difference of opinion among the “experts?”