I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add "(Report)" to the reciprocal 787?
Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA) Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center sla...@library.ucla.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question Adam Schiff wrote: > The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source > work and > the derivative work. On the record for the summary I could add the > following: > > 787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens > > but since the title is identical, this must have a qualifier of some sort, > yes? > If so what would make a reasonable qualifier? The reciprocal relationship > would be: > > 787 08 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens > > Again, I think I need to break the conflict here by adding a qualifier. I > thought perhaps of using "(Summary)" but I've not seen this done in any > other > situation. The addition of "(Summary)" seems like the most logical thing to do. I've taken exactly this kind of approach on occasion, with things like Draft and Final versions of documents. (BTW, I really dislike the use of the full Appendix J phrases in 7XX $i, instead of what's really meant for public display. I'm looking forward to a metadata carrier that will allow us to *code* the relationships, so users won't be seeing "Summary of (work):" but instead will just see "Summary of:".) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
