I think that RDA having to support the three scenarios (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf) means that the construction of authorized access points (only really needed in scenario 3 (card catalogs) and scenario 2 (MARC)) will continue to affect how Preferred Titles and Preferred Names are determined. The choice for preferred title and preferred name is consistently stated in RDA as being done in light of being "the basis for the authorized access point".
But there appears to be an alternative procedure already in place in RDA. Generally, parts of works are treated as standalone titles (RDA 6.2.2.9), even a title as non-distinct as "Part 1". Stitching together the elements for authorized access point for non-distinct titles involves bringing in other elements, such as the authorized access point for the larger work (RDA 6.27.2.2). It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, which would mean the Preferred Title for Genesis could be "Genesis" instead of "Bible. Genesis" leaving the authorized access point to be a concatenated construction including either the authorized access point for the larger work or qualifiers consisting of other elements. In the case of religious works, there is a consistent pattern for all scriptures to use subdivisions of the larger work (Bible, Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, Upanishads, and so on) in the authorized access point for the part. These could be covered as additional exceptions for Parts of Works in RDA 6.27.2.2. There is also an inherent bias to choosing forms for preferred titles as well, in the choice of predominant form (or as RDA describes the choice-"commonly found" or "commonly identified"). I'm not sure how that relates to the bias for the adherence to the Protestant Authorized Version in the choices for the authorized access points. However, separating out the individual title of the book of the Bible as the Preferred Title of the Religious Work (consistent with RDA 6.2.2.9) from the concatenation for the authorized access point for the work might go partway in resolving this issue. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Armin Stephan Sent: May 10, 2011 4:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha This discussion about biblical or apocryphal works seems unbelievable to me. The AACR cataloging tradition concerning these works is an anachronism. It was invited many, many years ago for card catalogs. All parts of the Bible should be found at one place in the card catalog. (I know this system from a German catalog in an university library. This catalog was founded in 1912!) In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such unpractical monsters of authority names. (But abbreviations to make them shorter??) The second unbelievable point is, that AACR and RDA use Latin numbers in the names of biblical works. No electronical system can handle such numbers perfectly. In Germany we cancelled this cataloging tradition in the eighties, when the new rules RAK have been developed. And now we shall get back these old-fashioned rules ... :-(( I'm very, very sad about the JSC discussion and decision. Of course the church libraries in Germany tried to get in contact with the national cataloging agency. But the problem got lost in the huge RDA discussion. If You treat the works of the Bible as individual works, You don't have the problem of a construction of hierarchical authority names and You don' t have the problem to decide if a work is a part of the biblical canon or not. It's problem enough that we have several names for the same work in the different confessions and denominations and so a big problem of authority control. Am 10.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas: The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical documents: In particular, http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 The original proposal included removing "O.T. Apocrypha" from individual titles of the Protestant Apocrypha, but this did not make it into RDA. Using the Authorized Version list of titles was considered an "arbitrary simplification", "biased", but a "necessary evil". That would mean that Catholic canon books in the Protestant Apocrypha would have "Apocrypha" as part of the preferred title. I think one needs to draw some Venn diagrams to see what books of the Bible are covered in each set of instructions in RDA: ****** For RDA 6.23.2.9.2 "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible" the governing list is the list of books in the Authorized Version, regardless of the Catholic canon. ****** For RDA 6.23.2.9.4 Apocrypha "For an individual book use the name of the book as a further subdivision", the list is in the Protestant Apocrypha: "1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees". ... meaning "Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit" is the preferred title. ****** For RDA 6.23.2.6 Apocryphal Books. This is for all that's leftover that is not in the Catholic canon or the Protestant Apocrypha "(i.e., one included neither in the Catholic canon nor in the Protestant Apocrypha)". ****** Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
