Proposal by NLNZ: Revision to 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.2.2.4 (Works created after 1500)

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Proposal by NLNZ: Revision to 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.2.2.4 (Works created after 1500)

  1. John Myers says:

    I’m not sure where to start here. Would it suffice to just say, “No”? I fear our colleagues have confused the difference between recording manifestation title with a title for the work. On page 2, under “Assessment of the impact …” they write, “A conventional collective title would only be assigned to works of a single author if there is no collective title appearing on the manifestation.” I ask, when is that likely to happen for a compilation of sufficient scope to warrant a conventional collective title?

    I think if the NLNZ feels that publication under a collective title is sufficient warrant that it “has become known” by that manifestation title, they are free to issue their own rule interpretation to that effect, without undoing for the rest of us the collocating function of the rules as currently written.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Like John, I say “No.” In spite of the loud voices on the lists to the contrary, the current instructions are adequate, and needed. The conventional collective titles are useful (especially “Works” — less so “… Selections”) 6.2.2.10 does allow for using a different title from a conventional collective title if another title have become known for the collection. This is obviously a matter of judgment. The objection seems to be people disliking the judgment of others in particular cases …

    The proposal appears to be attempting to do away with conventional collective titles entirely. I am very opposed to that. The instruction as it stands is sound.

    Bob

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    NLNZ has not quoted the appropriate part of RDA 0.4.3.4 in relation to naming works. They took the sentence that’s about manifestations: “The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.”

    However, the following *also* appears in 0.4.3.4, and this is more relevant to their proposal:

    The title or form of title chosen as the preferred title for a work should be:
    a) the title most frequently found in resources embodying the work in its original language
    or
    b) the title as found in reference sources
    or
    c) the title most frequently found in resources embodying the work.

    Note that they did quote this equivalent in 5.2….

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    NLNZ has also cited the International Cataloguing Principles as justification for this change.

    The most relevant sections of ICP to this situation appear to be in 6.3.3:

    6.3.3. Choice of Authorized Access Point
    The name preferred as the authorized access point for an entity should be based on the name that identifies the entity in a consistent manner, either as most frequently found on manifestations or a well-accepted name suited to the users of the catalogue (e.g., ‘conventional name’) as found in reference sources.

    *and*

    6.3.3.2. Choice of Authorized Access Point for Work and Expression
    When a work has multiple titles, one title should be preferred as the basis for the authorized access point for the work/expression.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    The proposal would benefit from examples showing the application of this new instruction; from what I can tell, these were not included.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    NLNZ’s impact statement only addresses the change moving forward. It does not name this as a significant change in practice.

    I would like the ALA response to make a broader statement of impact and would welcome specific comments from CC:DA on this point.

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Nothing in RDA would prevent recording the collective title on the manifestation as a part of a variant access point, even if the authorized access point used a conventional collective title.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    This proposal favors the principle of representation (RDA 0.4.3.4) over the objective of continuity (RDA 0.4.2.4). These two are sometimes in conflict with each other.

    During RDA development, ALA had similar objections to favoring representation when it comes to naming works. In response to one proposal in 2008 we said:

    “Representation may be a more compelling consideration for descriptive data (or for manifestation/item records) than for access points.”

    In the same response, we also noted a concern about devaluing the collocation function that collective conventional titles have traditionally provided in favor of giving more emphasis to identification.

    Does CC:DA still generally agree with this assessment?

  9. Robert Bratton says:

    Personally speaking, I hate these conventional collective titles and wish they had been jettisoned with the arrival of RDA. Do non-catalogers even notice that they exist? Do information seekers use “Works. Selections” to Find, Identify, Select, and/or Understand anything? We end up with endless lists of the titles like “Works” or “Laws, etc.” qualified usually by *manifestation* information such as publisher name, dates, title proper [manifestation title], etc. Yes, they can potentially collocate, but to what end if users and search mechanisms don’t use them?

    Having said that, this proposal seems to try to “get around” having to assign a conventional collective title in most cases, without really tackling them head on. This proposal splits the treatment of compilations of works by a single entity down two paths based solely on whether or not the compilation has a title. Untitled compilations get the “old” Work title treatment, but compilations with their own titles do not. That seems odd to me. If they wish to propose to do away with the conventional collective titles at RDA 6.2.2.10, then they should do so. I would support that.

    • Tina Shrader says:

      I’m going to add a “Me too!” to Robert’s post here.

      I’m dubious about the practical usefulness of conventional collective titles in our current environment and I think they’ll become increasingly irrelevant as we move library metadata into a linked data context, so I’d support a proposal that tackles that issue head on.

      On the other hand, I’m not sure this proposal does anything but provide wiggle room for variation in practice.

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    I wonder if 6.2.2.4 & 6.2.2.10 would benefit from using phrasing that’s associated with selecting the preferred name of a corporate body: “commonly identified” (instead of “has become known”). This might be a bit less ambiguous. The phrasing could looks something like this from 6.2.2.4 (italics = new text; square brackets indicate text to be deleted):

    For works created after 1500, choose as the preferred title the title in the original language by which the work is commonly identified [has become known either through use] in resources embodying the work or in reference sources.

    A similar change could occur in 6.2.2.10:
    If a compilation of works is commonly identified [known] by a title [that is used] in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5.

    Thoughts?

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I like “is commonly identified” in both instructions. I think that would improve application of 6.2.2.4 for things like popular music albums and more effectively guard against the troubling possibility of tons of popular music albums suddenly being assigned a CCT of Songs. $k Selections.

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        If we are going to change the wording in 6.2.2.10 anyway, should we do this?
        If a compilation of works of one person, family, or corporate body is commonly identified by a title in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4–6.2.2.5.
        That would make a nice parallel with what is proposed in 6.2.2.11.1-2.

  11. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Personally, I value the collocating function of unqualified CCTs for complete works and complete works of one type. Members of MusLA have noted that this proposal would not allow the CCT of “Works” in many cases where it would be useful, simply based on the presence of a collective title on the resource. That would be unfortunate. (I think the “is commonly identified” wording would solve that, though.) As for incomplete compilations, however, I am really skeptical of the utility of CCTs, and I am glad that using “Selections” is just an Alternative to the main instruction of identifying the individual works. Several in MusLA feel the same way, but concede that catalogers may need to rely on this provision when it is not feasible to identify the individual works.

  12. Steve Kelley says:

    I agree with John and Bob that there doesn’t seem to be a real need for this proposal.

  13. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Posting on behalf of my boss Chew Chiat Naun (“Naun”) from Cornell, who agrees with the thrust of the proposal and has provided me with an excerpt from a message he posted on the PCC list last year:

    “… conventional collective titles are a poor way to do either work/expression identification or genre/form access. The argument for conventional collective titles as a collocating device is not persuasive, because they work properly only for compilations of works in a single form by a single author. If you’re looking for all the separately published novels by a single author, conventional collective titles don’t help you at all.

    Instead of trying to cram genre/form information into a title field, I’d like to see the cataloguing community hitch this discussion to the ongoing work on genre/form vocabularies and treat it as a separate attribute to be recorded in its own field. MARC authority 380 is available for that purpose.

    We have become accustomed under RDA to recording attributes in name authorities that are not necessarily part of the heading. We should get used to the idea of doing the same thing for works.”

  14. Matthew Haugen says:

    Overall, I agree with the proposed revision to 6.2.2.10 and 6.2.2.4 regarding the application of conventional titles.
    Single works are generally assumed to be “known” by the titles on the resources embodying that work, and are not given conventional titles (such as “Novel. 2014”) for collocation under the assumption that we need further warrant for it to be known by that title. Doing this for compilations with their own titles contradicts the way in which the resource represents itself. While a titled compilation may eventually be known by other titles, I doubt it would ever be known as a title made up by a cataloger, any more than would be the case for single works. Some of this seems to be a matter of policy and rule interpretation, but assuming compilations are NOT “known by” a title found on manifestations requires catalogers to construct conventional titles for a much larger proportion of resources, including art catalogs, poetry and short story collections, etc. than was the case under AACR2. Furthermore, the need to differentiate among the compilations of more prolific creators sometimes leads to lengthy constructions that do not represent the specific collection clearly, and may ultimately rely on the title found on that compilation in the first place. The example in the NACO training module 6 “Dickens, Charles. Short stories. Selections. (Selected short stories)” seems particularly absurd and unhelpful to users. In my opinion, it gets even murkier when these access points are applied to translations, revised editions, and subject access points.
    By contrast, in music cataloging, conventional titles are applied to single works when the title consists solely of the name of a type of composition (e.g. “Quartet” 6.14.2.5), in addition to conventional titles applied to compilations (e.g. “Quartets” 6.14.2.8). Likewise, some compilations may have generic titles like “Poems” or otherwise represent itself as a collection or selection of works, with an indistinctive/generic title (e.g. “Selected short stories by Alice Munro”). Along with compilations with no title, LCRI 25.10 considered these generic titles as “insufficient” and used collective titles *only* in these cases in order to aid in collocation. A conventional title seems less at odds with the principle of representation in this case, but the distinction between sufficient and insufficient titles was not retained in any LC/PCC-PS as far as I can tell. Determination of sufficiency may be somewhat subjective and confusing for catalogers, but no more so than possible interpretations of “known as.” Interpretations of “known as” that require application of a CCT to every single art catalog and poetry book, even when it has a “sufficient” title, removes possibility for cataloger judgment in that regard.
    I may be getting out of scope, but the merits of this “conventional” approach to collocation seem better suited to card catalogs and printed indexes, and maybe still for resources with no titles or insufficient titles, but certainly not as a required approach for all compilations. Others have suggested retaining conventional titles as variant access points referring to the preferred title based on the of the compilation, or using separate genre/form elements rather than constructed access points to assist with collocation and filtering of both compiled and individual works.

  15. Allison Hausladen says:

    I strongly agree with the proposal. The following comments are to help explain why CCTs are not needed for all “compilations.”

    Art book catalogers had gotten along fine without the use of CCTs thanks to AACR2 21.17 and the use of subject headings, but many have interpreted RDA 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3 to apply to resources containing 2 or more reproductions of artwork. The sudden proliferation of CCTs in copy cataloging and the requirement of them for libraries wanting to remain in BIBCO ruffled our feathers like nothing else in RDA. We are suddenly being asked to add a CCT to almost all books we receive that are about a single artist, and it offers no added benefit to our patrons in selecting the item needed. This is not a fiscally sound practice … and that matters.

    ARLIS/NA’s CAC asked for a revision to LC-PCC PS 25.1. The response from LC was to offer a loophole in interpretation of the PS, but this does not change the practice of BIBCO libraries. NLNZ’s proposal is a great start in revising the RDA instructions themselves, and I’m so excited to be commenting on it.

    -Here was ARLIS/NA’s CAC revision proposal for LC-PCC PS 25.1 (May 31, 2013): http://arliscac.pbworks.com/w/file/66654001/ARLISNA%20CAC%20LC-PCC%20PS%2025.1%20revision%20proposal%20submitted%20to%20LC%20on%20May%2031%202013.pdf
    -Here was LC’s response (March 20, 2014): http://arliscac.pbworks.com/w/page/77427896/LC%20PSD%20response%20(Reser)

    A big part of the problem is with this idea of something being either a collaboration or a compilation, so black and white. And RDA’s glossary still lacks definitions of compilations and collaborations. A compilation should be considered a work in its own right when it presents a new set of ideas by collecting “works,” as is the case for art exhibition catalogs, for instance. To quote the ARLIS/NA proposal above: “Under the current guidelines, almost every resource in an art library is considered a compilation, since almost every resource contains some reproductions of art works. The resulting proliferation of additional access points makes them meaningless.”

    I think this very idea is what the National Library of New Zealand is getting at. The further the instructions get from common sense, the harder it is for catalogers to apply them quickly/consistently, the cost of cataloging increases, and fewer books get cataloged/purchased. And to add to the literal cost of this instruction on cataloging (quoting from the ARLIS/NA proposal again): “Once CCTs are added to records, [BIBCO] catalogers are required to create the corresponding authority records, an additional burden that is not justified by the benefit to our users.”

    I don’t exactly agree about the genre comment relayed by Tracey because for art books, I think the work may be greater than the payoff to our patrons. Subject access is how art librarians have successfully lived without CCTs as I’ll illustrate now:

    Text heavy works on a single artist (usually include at least 2 reproductions of artwork which RDA 6.2.2.10.3 currently defines as a compilation requiring “Selections”):
    -Critical works: |xCriticism and interpretation.
    -Biographies: |vBiography (can be applied to classes of persons, but many art libraries only apply this for collective biographies, not those on an individual…I really wish this could be applied to the individual)
    -Conferences: |vCongresses
    -Dissertations: generally either critical or biographical

    Chiefly illustrated resources with their own subdivisions include:
    -Complete works: |vCatalogues raisonnés
    -Selections: |vCatalogs
    -Selections: |vExhibitions

    Chiefly illustrated resources that lack their own subdivisions but still contain 300 |b chiefly illustrations and a 600 for the artist:
    -Artist’s books (may have |vArtist’s books as a 650 or 655)
    Promotional books (more recent thanks to self-publishing affordability, artist-initiated)
    -Artist monograph (not initiated by artist, not just biographical as includes a lot of reproductions)

  16. Allison Hausladen says:

    I strongly agree with the proposal. The following comments are to help explain why CCTs are not needed for all “compilations.”

    Art book catalogers had gotten along fine without the use of CCTs thanks to AACR2 21.17 and the use of subject headings, but many have interpreted RDA 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3 to apply to resources containing 2 or more reproductions of artwork. The sudden presence of CCTs in copy cataloging and the requirement of them for libraries wanting to remain in BIBCO ruffled our feathers like nothing else in RDA. We are suddenly being asked to add a CCT to almost all books we receive that are about a single artist, and it offers no added benefit to our patrons in selecting the item needed. This is not a fiscally sound practice … and that matters.

    ARLIS/NA’s CAC asked for a revision to LC-PCC PS 25.1. The response from LC was to offer a loophole in interpretation of the PS, but this does not change the practice of BIBCO libraries. NLNZ’s proposal is a great start in revising the RDA instructions themselves, and I’m so excited to be commenting on it.

    -Here was ARLIS/NA’s CAC revision proposal for LC-PCC PS 25.1 (May 31, 2013): http://arliscac.pbworks.com/w/file/66654001/ARLISNA%20CAC%20LC-PCC%20PS%2025.1%20revision%20proposal%20submitted%20to%20LC%20on%20May%2031%202013.pdf
    -Here was LC’s response (March 20, 2014): http://arliscac.pbworks.com/w/page/77427896/LC%20PSD%20response%20(Reser)

    A big part of the problem is with this idea of something being either a collaboration or a compilation, so black and white. And RDA’s glossary still lacks definitions of compilations and collaborations. A compilation should be considered a work in its own right when it presents a new set of ideas by collecting “works,” as is the case for art exhibition catalogs, for instance. To quote the ARLIS/NA proposal above: “Under the current guidelines, almost every resource in an art library is considered a compilation, since almost every resource contains some reproductions of art works. The resulting proliferation of additional access points makes them meaningless.”

    I think this very idea is what the National Library of New Zealand is getting at. The further the instructions get from common sense, the harder it is for catalogers to apply them quickly/consistently, the cost of cataloging increases, and fewer books get cataloged/purchased. And to add to the literal cost of this instruction on cataloging (quoting from the ARLIS/NA proposal again): “Once CCTs are added to records, [BIBCO] catalogers are required to create the corresponding authority records, an additional burden that is not justified by the benefit to our users.”

    I don’t exactly agree about the genre comment relayed by Tracey because for art books, I think the work may be greater than the payoff to our patrons. Subject access is how art librarians have successfully lived without CCTs as I’ll illustrate now:

    Text heavy works on a single artist (usually include at least 2 reproductions of artwork which RDA 6.2.2.10.3 currently defines as a compilation requiring “Selections”):
    -Critical works: |xCriticism and interpretation.
    -Biographies: |vBiography (can be applied to classes of persons, but many art libraries only apply this for collective biographies, not those on an individual…I really wish this could be applied to the individual)
    -Conferences: |vCongresses
    -Dissertations: generally either critical or biographical

    Chiefly illustrated resources with their own subdivisions include:
    -Complete works: |vCatalogues raisonnés
    -Selections: |vCatalogs
    -Selections: |vExhibitions

    Chiefly illustrated resources that lack their own subdivisions but still contain 300 |b chiefly illustrations and a 600 for the artist:
    -Artist’s books (may have |vArtist’s books as a 650 or 655)
    -Promotional books (more recent thanks to self-publishing affordability, artist-initiated)
    -Artist monograph (not initiated by artist, not just biographical as includes a lot of reproductions)

Leave a Reply