Hal,
I'm not sure that I understand what your concern is. In terms of current
authority practice, we would first decide on the name for the work. Then
if what we have is a particular expression of that work that needs to be
identified, we use what we've done for the work and add to it in some way
or another to identify the expression. I don't see how this in any way
tries to anticipate all the possible elements that might be needed to
identify an expression at the time the work record is created.
What am I not understanding of your question?
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Hal Cain wrote:
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
