Print

Print


  1. Personally, I find Liver (Reference work : Arias) even more confusing than just Liver (Arias).
  2. The 130 is the usually the uniform title of the Work rather than the Expression.  There is no reason to include an AAP for the Expression in this record.
  3. This record probably does not need to have a 130 at all.  The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth editions, as catalogued by the Library of Congress, do not have uniform titles.  This record is CIP.  I expect that when fully catalogued, there will be no 130 field in this record.

 

Steve McDonald

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 1:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] work-level vs expression-level access points

 

2 quick questions about a work-level AAP used in this bib record (lccn 2019024961).

 

130 0   Liver (Arias)

 

1) The qualifier “Arias” sounds a bit funny and “untoward”, so to speak, since it happens to be a variant form of the lcgft term “Songs.” We all know, for machine indexing and data manipulation, it does not matter at all. But for a human to read and comprehend what it is, would it be better to see a more understandable heading like “Liver (Reference work : Arias)”?  

 

2) This is the 6th edition of the work. At this point, would an expression level access point be more appropriate?

 

130 0   Live (Arias) $s (6th edition)

 

Per OCLC bib file, the first edition was published in 1983; Irwin M. Arias has been its chief editor since the 1st edition. I am not questioning the use of work-level AAP in this bib, seeing that it stands for “[a] distinct intellectual … creation.” I am just inquiring if there’s a best practice when we come to deal with reference books/textbooks that have gone through multiple editions.

 

If a work-level AAP is all we need, so be it. But if an expression-level AAP is more uniquely helpful to library users, then, why not?

 

Yang