It sounds very persuasive to add expression-level elements to added entries to organize the entries in the catalog, but it would in fact create split files.  The problem is that we generally don’t add such expression-level elements when cataloging a manifestation that contains only the “original” expression of the work, meaning in most cases an expression in the original language.

 

See, for example, The Canterbury tales : complete (LCCN 99072033).  It appears to be the Middle English text.  The record has a 240 in OCLC but not in the LC catalog, but it makes no difference, since the 240 and the 245 are the same string.  If we wanted to use “practice #2” in added entries and we wanted to collocate all the Middle English editions, we would have to add expression-level elements to the 240 on this and every other record.  This may explain why LC and other libraries continue to use “practice #1.”

 

I agree with Charles that “When we are cataloging an edition of the Canterbury tales, we are necessarily describing an expression of the work,” and that is true for anything else we catalog.  A manifestation embodies an expression.  However, I believe it is still true that the majority of works only ever exist in one expression, so our catalog records have always omitted an access point that explicitly identifies that expression.  That has meant that the access point for the work has also served as the de facto access point for the original expression.

 

Another thought: if we have a bilingual edition of the Canterbury tales or any other work and we have a 700 for each expression (whether or not they contain expression elements), why should the record have a 100?  What does it identify?  A 1XX field always has to be understood in combination with a 240, if present, or a 245.  Together they form an authorized access point for an *expression*.  Because of the disjointed nature of the MARC record and the practices described above, it might seem that it identifies a work, but that can’t be right.  If the 1XX plus the 245 do not identify the right expression, we insert a 240 to identify the expression, so the combination must be identifying an expression.

 

These comments represent my opinion alone and do not reflect the thinking of any task group I may be part of. J

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 17:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [External] [PCCLIST] Authorized access point to an expressions (NACO Training Module 6, RDA 6.27.3 and RDA 6.11.1.3)

 

I have come to find the "extended" PCC practice of adding elements to an expression-level heading ("practice #2" in Yang's description) to be extremely useful in organizing entries in my library's catalog.

 

I would like to see the cataloging community move away from LC's short-cut practice ("practice #1") of making the work heading do double duty as an expression-level heading for an expression in the original language.

 

Whenever I can, I create authority records with the added elements (practice #2).

 

In my view, the heading

 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales.

 

identifies the work; its most common function is to serve as a subject heading in a bib record describing a work that is about the Canterbury tales.

 

When we are cataloging an edition of the Canterbury tales, we are necessarily describing an expression of the work, and I think our descriptions are more informative when we add the additional elements RDA suggests for expression-level headings.

 

In the case of the Canterbury tales, the use of added elements provides a handy way to describe editions that contain the original Middle English text rather than a modern English text, or an edition that contains those two expressions together.

 

Following LC-PCC PS for 6.11.1.3, Form of Language Names, point #5, the language form for Middle English would be $l English (Middle English)

 

So for an edition of Canterbury tales that contains the text in both Middle English and modern English, our pair of access points would be:

 

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l English (Middle English)

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l English.

 

I personally find it helpful to add an additional element to these headings; in most cases, that would be a subfield $s containing the name of the editor, translator, etc.

 

Charles Croissant

Saint Louis University


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [External] [PCCLIST] Authorized access point to an expressions (NACO Training Module 6, RDA 6.27.3 and RDA 6.11.1.3)

 

Hi,

 

Sometimes when a pair of expressions of a work (e.g., a bilingual edition) is needed in a bib, one witness see two different practices, 1) LC’s way of using the work-level authority record as a substitute, and 2) PCC’s way of minting a new expression-level authority record. It is quite clear that PCC catalogers, other than those at LC, are encouraged to follow Practice#2. But I also realize, and I have witnessed often, that some PCC institutions prefer following LC’s own “cost-cutting” practice, since no library, not even LC, gets FED’s helicopter money! Regardless, this is what we have been doing under RDA.  

 

For a bilingual edition of Chaucer’s Canterbury tales, following Practice#1, one would give a pair of 700s like this:

 

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales.

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l German.

 

Those who follow Practice#2 would give:

 

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l English.

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l German.

 

Or perhaps like this*:  

 

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l English (Middle English)

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‡d -1400. ‡t Canterbury tales. $l German.

 

*“For the early form of a modern language that is found in an inverted form, use the early form in direct order within parentheses following the modern language (e.g., for "French, Old (ca. 842-1400)," use "French (Old French)")”--LC/PCC PS on RDA 6.11.1.3.

 

I would like to know which language qualifier is preferable, English or English (Middle English). The former or the latter?

 

Any clarification of this will be much appreciated. Also, would be possible to add a footnote to Slides 170 or 171 of NACO training module#6, with a reference to LC/PCC PS 6.11.1.3 (“Recording language of expression)? I know the training modules get used/download often and are being updated constantly.

 

Thanks for your time!

 

Yang