On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from something like
"(Conference)" after an initialism which is not clearly a conference.
No more "[proceedings]".
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works with
the same title:
6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions
If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given under
6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point
applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9.
6.27.1.9 Additions to Access Points Representing Works
If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given under
6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the
following, as appropriate:
a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3)
b) the date of the work (see 6.4)
c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or
d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of
the work (see 6.6).
In my case, both the full report and the summary have the same title
proper, and since the works would be named by title only, 6.27.1.9 is
applicable. I will go with "a term indicating another distinguishing
characterist of the work" and use "Water availability in the Ovens
(Summary)" as the authorized access point for the derivative work. I do
think that the full report also probably needs to have a qualifier added
to it to distinguish it. I'm thinking "Water availability in the Ovens
(Full report)" is about as good as anything else.
The bib records are OCLC #408550975 and 808387939. The name authority
records are no2012115407 and no2012115406. I used reciprocal 530s in the
NARs to link the two related works.
Now that you've helped me solve this question - here's another for the
same two works:
I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point
made for the government of Australia, based on the subtitles:
Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government
from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
710 2_ CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, $e author.
710 1_ Australia, $e ???
710 2_ CSIRO (Australia), $e issuing body.
Any suggestions? None of the existing designators in Appendix I seems
appropriate. The closest is "sponsoring body" but nowhere in the works
does it explicitly state that the Australian Government is a sponsor of
the work. For now, I've recorded this access point without a
relationship designator.
Thanks again,
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 *
**************************************
