Print

Print


Move up one level to “access point for work”, and you’ll find a list of “Additions to distinguish an access point.”  “Date of work” is among them.

https://beta.rdatoolkit.org/en-US_ala-f1aeca83-e610-3202-8706-bdfeb9975449/p_f4l_hpj_xfb

 

Of course, Beta RDA doesn’t get into string encoding schemes or punctuation patterns here aside from a direction in an Option box.

 

--

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/>

 

  "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]> On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [External] Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

That is not a fair comparison.  AACR2 was not a change in fundamental model, as RDA is.  I agree that continuing misunderstanding of this aspect of RDA is a serious concern, and it is fair to ask whether RDA is flawed.  But let us avoid logical fallacies.

 

I would broadly say that the rules for constructing Authorized Access Points are a weak spot in RDA and a source of much inconsistency in practice.  They represent a String Encoding Scheme (or more than one) which only exists in the rules to accommodate environments without linked data.  The scheme is based on legacy AACR2 practices, with some changes to meet the FRBR (and now LRM) model.  This particular aspect of dates in conventional collective titles is a big enough problem that “flawed” might be accurate.

 

I just took a look at the Beta Toolkit.  I don’t immediately see anything about adding dates or other qualifying data to a Work AAP.  But I only had time to look for a few minutes.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

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

Cataloger

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood

Chicago, IL  60637

773-955-4545 x326

[log in to unmask]

CRL website: www.crl.edu

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 1:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

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.  

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries 

 


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.

 

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 Jessica Janecki
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

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.

 

Jessica

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

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.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

 

Hi all,

 

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

 

rather than:

 

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?”

 

Thanks,

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University