Catalogers at UCSD are in full agreement with Kevin on this point and UCSD raised this issue on PCC-List with regards to LC’s decision that they will always be using a collective title for works like this. UCSD is concerned also with LC’s further policy decision that they will not differentiate such collective titles, e.g. a compilation of poems by author x issued in 2011 and one issued in 2012 would both get exactly the same AAP, “author x. Poems. Selections” We find this contrary to RDA since 6.27.1.9 (and its policy statement) tells us to differentiate all access points for works. It’s not very useful to catalogers or users (our public services staff has already noticed these and would like them removed) and we would like to see the policy reconsidered.
Adolfo R. Tarango Head – UC Systemwide Collection Services atara...@ucsd.edu<mailto:atara...@ucsd.edu> 858-822-3594 [cid:image001.png@01CD877F.99FB9310] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about "conventional collective titles" (6.2.2.10.3) The way I read "If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources" that means that any brand-spanking-new publication which happens to be a compilation would meet that condition. Unless you're arguing that Stephen King's latest collection of short stories and Natasha Trethewey's latest collection of poems are not known by the titles appearing on the title pages and covers, and by which people look for them in bookstores and libraries. I don't see anything implying that a resource needs to sit around and age for any period of time before it is "known by a title". I think the access points resulting from 6.2.2.10 are quite valuable to aid the FRBR user task of "Find", but I think using them as the AAP makes things more difficult for the "Identify" and "Select" tasks. They really should be variant access points, IMO. Kevin From: Casey A Mullin [mailto:cmul...@stanford.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:24 PM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Kevin M Randall Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about "conventional collective titles" (6.2.2.10.3) To me, it has to do with the phrases "known by" and "resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources"; these imply that the compilation as a work in its own right has been around for awhile, and with that particular title. YMMV, of course. Casey On 3/21/2013 10:08 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: Casey Mullin said, regarding 6.2.2.10: "The best practice for when to apply this condition has not really been established. Certainly, "Leaves of grass" by Whitman would qualify for most catalogers, but new collections published for the first time probably wouldn't." I don't understand why "new collections published for the first time probably wouldn't." Could you elaborate? Kevin Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu> (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -- Casey A. Mullin Head, Data Control Unit Metadata Department Stanford University Libraries 650-736-0849 cmul...@stanford.edu<mailto:cmul...@stanford.edu> http://www.caseymullin.com -- "Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of that minority." -Martha Yee
<<inline: image001.png>>
