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?”