Print

Print


I see that.  I don't see an example of Selections (date), but rather
Selections. #f 1968.

Gene Fieg

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Date of work is an element that can be used to distinguish an access point
> for a work from that of another entity. See RDA 6.27.1.9.
>
>
>
> 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 *Gene Fieg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:29 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Qualifiers for "Selections"
>
>
>
> Is (date) allowed after Selections?  I mean the parentized form of
> expressing it.
>
>
>
> Gene Fieg
>
> Cataloger Ret'd
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> 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!
>
>
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
> *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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6050+S.+Kenwood+%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60637?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Chicago, IL
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6050+S.+Kenwood+%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60637?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 60637
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/6050+S.+Kenwood+%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60637?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 773-955-4545 x326
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> CRL website: www.crl.edu
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.crl.edu&d=DwMFAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=anap9U5cKCYFpuV8TfHjWI8-dTdlpILaeiNCLVikHJg&s=c1Ci9MADQydJXYXzUW52tWtj13SFGVP5IYkDudDTHlc&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[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
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMFAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=syBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw&m=anap9U5cKCYFpuV8TfHjWI8-dTdlpILaeiNCLVikHJg&s=MAwutAD2xOLXKHAWt_5Ctv5G6GIeRrPgPyB3wP8jDKU&e=>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>