I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training 
materials, but the more I think about it the more realize I've changed my mind 
about the nature of aggregate works that purport to be the complete works of an 
author. I believe there can only be a single such aggregate work (after all, an 
author can only write one "complete works"), and that variations are 
expressions of that work. (I do stand by the NACO Module 6 position that 
different "selections" are different works.)

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Chew Chiat Naun
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9




A few comments on this very interesting thread.



In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always 
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. 
The problem affects not only conventional  collective titles, but potentially 
also any work or expression authorized access point that needs to be 
differentiated. We need a new set of conventions for punctuation and/or 
subfielding, perhaps even a redefinition of the MARC subfields, to get around 
this problem. For example, I've seen it proposed that for works we give date 
qualifiers in parentheses without separating them into another subfield. But I 
don't know if there is a consensus about this.



(I know there is some debate about whether it is feasible to retrofit existing 
bib records with RDA work and expression AAPs at this date, and whether 
constructing unique AAPs is indeed the way we should be trying to differentiate 
works and expressions. Those are good questions. But if we are in fact going to 
do RDA in MARC, we will need to clarify our practices.)



I agree with Kevin Randall that a compilation, like any other work, is best 
identified by the title it is published with (or rather an AAP based on same). 
Even if by some misfortune it fails to become known by that title, it's hard to 
see that the solution is to catalogue it with a title no ordinary user would 
know it by.



I agree also with Robert Maxwell that compilations purporting to be the 
complete works of a single author are (usually) best treated as the same 
aggregate work. It's probably worth pointing out, however, that the NACO Module 
6 training materials for works and expressions currently reflect a different 
position.



--

Chew Chiat Naun

Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services

110D Olin Library

Cornell University

(607) 254 8031<tel:%28607%29%20254%208031>





On 16 December 2013 07:18, Adam Schiff 
<asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have 
different contents.  The PCC NACO training says to add additional work element 
(date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic) to the 
conventional collective title.  The date is probably NOT the best thing to add, 
although it's one option.  Many NACO libraries are adding the title proper of 
the collection instead, since it may better aid in identification, for example:

X. Poems. Selections (Best of X's poetry)

Some catalogers are not happy with this practice, and would prefer to consider 
the title of the compilation to be the preferred title by which the compilation 
is known.  LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work does not become 
known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g. Whitman's Leaves of 
Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a conventional collective 
title must be used instead.

Incidentally, although the RDA instructions do seem to be clear that the date 
would be added in parentheses as you have done, in practice in MARC these are 
being added in subfield $f following a period:

X. $t Poems. $k Selections. $f 2010

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

-----Original Message----- From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:41 AM

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and  6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.

If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.:
"Selected poems / X"
"Best of X's poetry"
Both get the collective title "Poems. Selections" according to 6.2.2.10.2.

But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute
according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.:
X. Poems. Selections (1995)
X. Poems. Selections (2010)

In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry
collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in
the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute
would be necessary in the AAP).

I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add
dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but
that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never
distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do
others do?

Heidrun

--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to: 
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> In the 
body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Reply via email to