In the model we are following an entity (such as a work, expression, person, etc.) can have one and only one instance and that instance has one and only one authorized access point.
Under RDA we are to record “as a minimum the work manifested” (0.6.8).This is done in a MARC bibliographic record in our current environment by recording the authorized access point for the work either in 1XX + 240, 1XX + 245 subfield $a (when that subfield is exactly the same as the preferred title of the work), or 7XX field(s). The character strings in these fields need to match exactly the character strings in the corresponding authority record (if it exists).
So yes, if the authorized access point for a work changes, the authorized access points recorded in existing bibliographic records (at least those emanating from PCC) do need to be changed because the old form is no longer accurate and no longer represents the “work manifested” relationship to the record. This is what we do if the authorized access point for a person changes for whatever reason (e.g., a death date is added, or the preferred name changes for some reason--we go back and change all the forms in old bibliographic records to match the new form); the same applies to authorized access points for works.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
But would you recommend going back to the original publications and changing the AAP to Agatha Christie? I think that would be confusing.
Then you would have to tell people to put on a 700 for Westmacott. Not everyone would do it.
Just my two cents.
I believe that since these three works have been republished as attributed to Agatha Christie the AAP should be changed to Agatha Christie. I seem to remember that a decision was made with the Richard Bachman books began to be republished with Stephen King on the title page, but I am struggling to find any documentation.
Agatha Christie wrote six romance novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott per the Westmacott authority. Currently there are three titles established under Westmacott in the LCNAF. All three have been republished in recent years as "by Agatha Christie writing as Mary Westmacott." This raises several questions.
1. When this formulation is used, which is the correct choice for a work's authorized access point--the "by" name, or the "writing as" name? How should we interpret "Works by this author are entered under the name used in the item" in this case?
2. When all titles initially published under a pseudonym are republished under an author's better known identity, should the pseudonym change in LCNAF from a separate 100 to a 400 under the better known identity?
3a. If the 100 does become a 400, is it still appropriate to preserve 400 name/title entries established under a name no longer established separately? For example:
100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread
400 1 $w nne $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Giant's bread
3b. If a title published under the pseudonym was never established, is it still appropriate to have 400 name/title entries under a name no longer established separately? For example:
100 1 $a Christie, Agatha, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden
400 1 $a Westmacott, Mary, $d 1890-1976. $t Daughter's burden
4. In these cases, if a pseudonym like Westmacott is preserved as a separate 100 identity and does not become a 400 for Christie, can both names appear as access points in bib records, e.g., one as 100 and the other as 700?
The catalog records entered under Westmacott in OCLC indicate a fair amount of uncertainty how to deal with these cases.
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455