Adam L. Schiff wrote:
A qualifier can be added to the name of the work to indicate a particular expression of the work. If desired, I think an access point for an unnarrated expression of Peter and the wolf could be created following the instructions in RDA 6.13. RDA wouldn't prescribe what term to record for the "Other distinguishing characteristic of the expression", but perhaps "Unnarrated" would be the most appropriate term to use.
Um. Are we to suppose, then, that the name of a work (however the basic elements are constructed -- creator name + title, or title alone) should be elaborated with all possible differentiating elements when first created? While I'm on record as saying that I believe current AACR2/LCRI/NACO practices discourage cataloguers from proceeding to meet in advance reasonably forseeable conflicts, I'm aghast at the prospect of making explicit, in advance, criteria of difference in terms of extended features which are *not* included in the expression in hand/on screen/in hearing. I doubt that's what Adam means. But I'm struck by the negative characteristic "unnarrated" (just as much as, in another frame of reference, I'm struck by name constructs such as "Pseudo-Augustine"). Negative characteristics may be implied: one supposes that an expression record for J.R.R. Tolkien's own maps for The Lord of the Rings would be without a distinguishing qualifier, while Pauline Baynes's reworked versions of the maps would, if not attributed primarily to her, be named with some form of distinction from Tolkien's originals. It hardly seems reasonable to proceed as if nothing will be changed or amended after it has been created. Must everything be made explicit, or can some things be added afterwards, or be left implied? If the former (everything to be made explicit at the outset), then RDA must fail because unworkable. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
