> -----Original Message-----

> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod

> Sent: July 28, 2011 1:40 PM

> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

> Subject: [RDA-L] XML RDA record

>

...



>

> >Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: "Omescu, Ion.

> >Hamlet. French"

>

> No.  Again, "Hamlet" is the title of the play or character which is

> the subject of the work, not the title of the work.  "French" would be

> added the the uniform title for a translation of the play.  The fact

> that the critique of the play or character is in French would not

> affect the subject entry point for the play.

>





"Hamlet" is the Preferred title for the work by Ion Omescu.





The authorized access point for the work is:



Omescu, Ion. Hamlet



(It could have been "Omescu, Ion. Hamlet, ou La tentation du possible" but RDA 
6.2.2.4 says not to include alternate titles from the title proper when 
recording the Preferred title of the work).





The authorized access point for the expression start with the authorized access 
point for the work, and adds expression elements:



Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French





The subject access point is a relationship to the work, and once RDA adds 
subject relationships, it might look something like this:



WORK: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet

Has subject: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet

Designator: criticism of



The French expression is not part of this relationship-- it's strictly a 
work-to-work relationship for this subject access point.





The discussion is missing one major point:



The authorized access point for a work (such as "Omescu, Ion. Hamlet") is only 
one of the conventions used to identify a work in RDA.



The collection of elements that comprise the entity is how RDA expects the 
entity to be primarily represented. Identifiers (such as URIs) are another 
convention.







This is roughly how that data would be represented in RDA…







Manifestation attributes (with some liberties to follow RDA conventions and 
LCPS):



Title proper: Hamlet, ou, La tentation du possible

Variant title: Tentation du possible

Other title information: essai

First statement of responsibility: Ion Omescu

Second statement of responsibility: avant-propos d'Henri Gouhier

Edition statement: Premiere édition

Publication statement:

- Place of publication: Paris

- Publisher’s name: Presses universitaires de France

- Date of publication: [1987]

Copyright date: ©1987

Series statement: Littératures modernes

Mode of issuance: single unit

Identifier for the manifestation: ISBN 2130401309

Media type: unmediated

Carrier type: volume

Extent of text: ix, 278 pages

Dimensions: 21 cm





Work attributes:

Preferred title for the work: Hamlet





Expression attributes:

Language of expression: French

Content type: text

Supplementary content: Includes bibliographical references (pages [269]-270) 
and index.







Relationships:

Work

Creator: Omescu, Ion

designator: author



Work

Related work: Littératures moderns

designator: series



Work (anticipating subject relationships in RDA):

Related work: Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1564-1616. Hamlet

designator: criticism of





[Once one sees the pattern for relationships in RDA, they become dead simple. A 
far cry from the vast complexity of MARC as it tries to accomplish the same 
things.]





The authorized access points for the original work are formed out of the 
granular elements (attributes and relationships)…



Authorized access point for the work:

Omescu, Ion. Hamlet



Authorized access point for this expression:

Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French





Those authorized access points (with all the baggage and rules for main entry 
they carry forward from AACR2) are but one convention to represent specific 
entities, well-suited for left-anchored flat file catalogs to collocate related 
works and expressions.



Also, RDA is not silent about ISBD display. There’s RDA Appendix D.1 that 
provides all the instructions for an overlay of ISBD punctuation on all of 
these elements (and Appendix E.1 for AACR2 punctuation in access points). It’s 
all there if needed—the point is that it’s not needed for all environments.

Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library








Reply via email to