I think the thing to bear in mind is that "access point" is one of five possible ways for recording relationships, and that whether a given data string is treated as a citation or an access point is a local system implementation decision. RDA in this instance can be said to be simply recognizing existing practice, where linking entries in MARC 21 records are treated by some systems as citations and by others as access points, regardless of whether they are defined as such in the catalog code. While MARC 21 does not define linking entries as access points, local systems can--and frequently do--do whatever they want with the data in those fields.
So I don't think this is something we need to worry about. The _identical_ relationship data in an RDA record will be treated by one local system simply as a citation (with no indexing) and by another as an access point (with indexing). RDA does not compel you to treat the data one way or the other (though obviously a citation recorded as an ISBD bibliographic description will not lend itself to use as an access point). Ed Jones National University (San Diego) -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renette Davis Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:07 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comments on RDA draft 6.10 I think there has been some confusion regarding access points and linking entries. I think that an access point, like the existing term added entry, is something in the record which gets you to that record. A linking entry is something in the record which gets you to a related record. I definitely want linking entries for preceding and succeeding resources, to get the users from the existing record to the record for the preceding or succeeding resource. However, I don't think I want an access point on the existing record for the preceding or succeeding resource unless I am doing latest entry or earliest entry cataloging. If I am doing latest entry cataloging for a serial, I change the author and/or title based on the latest issue and add an access point for the author and/or title on earlier issues. If I am doing earliest entry cataloging for a serial, I keep the author and/or title of the earliest issue and add an access point for the author and/or title on later issues. Currently major changes for serials are handled by successive entry, which means I create a new record for each major change. I add linking entries to get the users from one record to the other. For awhile our system did index linking entries, so in effect they became access points. However, public services staff objected because they felt it was confusing to pull up the records for related resources when they were looking for the record for a specific resource. If our system could have pulled up all related records, and displayed them in a meaningful way, they might have liked it. However, what it did was pull up only the record for the immediately preceding and immediately succeeding resources (those that we put linking entries in the records for) and displayed them in no meaningful way, so they had to click on each record to see if it was the one that they wanted. Therefore, we no longer index linking entries in our system. However, we hope that we will soon be able to click on linking entries to go directly to the related resource. That's the real purpose of linking entries, I think. Renette At 12:27 PM 7/26/2006, you wrote: >Renette Davis wrote: > >6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the >preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record? > >[snip] > >6.10.2.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the >succeeding resource? Wouldn't that be an earliest entry record? > >------------------------------------- > >Perhaps the access points are provided so that there are connections >between related records which will then allow users to proceed through a >succession of them with as little difficulty as possible? In an >information environment that is increasingly "clickably connected" my >question is, why wouldn't one want to include such access points? > >Issues of the defined use of the tags aside and not to conflate RDA with >MARC, it would seem that the widespread practice of using/indexing tags >780/785 shows that there is broad appeal to having an access point(s) >for preceding and/or succeeding resources in a given (serial) resource's >record. I would add that it is also currently routine to provide an >access point to the bibliographical antecedent in the record of a motion >picture. > >Perhaps in response to my own question, there clearly are situations >where use of different individual techniques or combinations of >techniques as described in 6.1.3-6.1.7 may be more or less appropriate, >depending on the nature of the relationship between resources and the >needs of an agency's user community. As my father would say, "that's >why there's chocolate AND vanilla ice cream." If you don't like one >technique, then use another. > >I don't see where latest or earliest entry record has to enter the >discussion, unless there is confusion between access point and main >access point. > >John Myers, Catalog Librarian >Schaffer Library, Union College >Schenectady NY 12308 >518-388-6623 >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
