Ben,
You are correct. NLM created this CIP record and we have many other works titled just Liver. And we did add the qualifier to all the editions of this work in our own catalog back when we cataloged the 5th edition. And it probably
never occurred to anyone here that Arias could be read as a musical term rather than a name, because that’s not on our radar screen.
Diane Boehr
Head, Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike MSC 3823
Bethesda, MD 20894
301-480-1491
From: Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] work-level vs expression-level access points
Steve,
Doesn’t it need the UT to distinguish is from other works (e.g.: lccn:
93023602) that have the title “Liver” and no author Main Entry (per RDA 6.27.1.9)? Or am I misunderstanding something?
B
Ben Abrahamse
Metadata Librarian
MIT Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] work-level vs expression-level access points
I agree that this title _could_ have a uniform title. By historical practice, it does not _need_ one. Liver is the only title that this work has been published under. If a first edition with no creator were catalogued today,
it probably would get a uniform title. But the work has gone without a uniform title for 38 years.
If this record is given a uniform title, then all previous editions should also get the same uniform title. This would require a BFM to the Library of Congress for five previous editions. It is an awful lot of work to fix something that
is perfectly acceptable by historical practice. As I suggested above, I expect that the Library of Congress will remove the 130 when the edition is fully catalogued.
Steve McDonald
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] work-level vs expression-level access points
Since the title proper is just Liver, it probably does need a 130.
Jessica
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] work-level vs expression-level access points
Steve McDonald
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