Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA 6.2 .1.9, 6.14.2.7.1, Appendix B.3: Abbreviation for the part designation Number or its equivalent in another language

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Proposal: Revision proposal for RDA 6.2 .1.9, 6.14.2.7.1, Appendix B.3: Abbreviation for the part designation Number or its equivalent in another language

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    A question for generalists — does this problem occur outside of music? Are there times when the preferred title for a part could have no general term associated with it?

    If so, the equivalent instructions need to be added in 6.2.2.9.

    If anyone has an example of this occurring with a textual work, please let me know.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      For example, I’d like to understand how “book” became part of this AAP:

      Herodotus. ǂt History. ǂn Book 7

      However, it looks like generalists don’t have the same need to add a general term (and I do agree with the WG that this *is* needed for music):

      Demosthenes. ǂt Philippicae. ǂn III

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        At this point, I’m leaning toward the direction the WG went on this — the problem seems to be exclusive (or nearly exclusive) to music.

      • John Myers says:

        I’d have to look at the authority file to answer better, but there are a number of Classical titles that are formally divided into Books. (Perhaps much like Lord of the Rings, while split into three distinctly titled volumes, is actually comprised of Books 1-6 — given Tolkien’s scholarly interests, it would not surprise me in the least that he would mold his work according to Classical antecedents.) Hopefully Bob Maxwell can comment more authoritatively (or I can find time to research this better, time being in short supply in my office these days however, not that any of us have a surfeit.)

    • Larisa Walsh says:

      “Number” could be a part of a non-music titles. As John pointed out, it happens a lot in classical literature, or in other general works when a separate chapters or books within a multi-volume” publication have significance of their own. For example,

      Catholic Church. ǂb Council of Toledo ǂn (4th : ǂd 633) ǂt Canones. ǂn Number 75.

      What about other part designations like Chapters? Shall they be also considered?

      Alcoholics Anonymous comes of age. ǂn Chapter 1-6

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Should the revision (either just for music, or also for the general instructions) be trying to address all of the following — and if so, is this what we want?

    General term + number:
    – Record both: [Book 1]
    General term, no number:
    – Record term: [Supplement]
    Number, no general term:
    – Record number, preceded by a cataloger-supplied general term in the language of the preferred title: [Nr. 5]

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    In 6.2.1.9, new example, I believe the entire preferred title should be supplied here, not just the part (see the final example, which shows a part title in context). Thus I suggest:

    Cimento dell’armonia e dell’inventione. N. 4

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    In terms of what abbreviations are allowed in music preferred titles, is it only the abbreviation for “number” (in any language)? Or does it include other terms in Appendix B.7, like “bk”, “Bd”, “pt.”, etc.?

    If it’s really broader than “no.” [etc.] then maybe the revised instructions should refer to appropriate abbreviated designations in B.7.

    Thoughts?

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Well, I suppose if there’s no general term, there’d be no reason to supply anything than “number” or its equivalent — so back to the drawing board….

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    I wonder if there’s a way to simplify the wording proposed for 6.2.1.9.b, letting the full weight of the instruction be carried at 6.14.2.7.1.

    I suggest the following instead:
    b) general terms associated with a numeric designation in the title for a part of a musical work (see 6.14.2.7.1)

    Obviously, the same wording is also needed in B.3.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    I think the proposed text for 6.14.2.7.1 belongs better under 6.14.2.7.1.1, Part Identified Only by a Number. This is the primary situation when a cataloger needs to add the general term for “number” [etc.]

    This could also occur as part of 6.14.2.7.1.4, Each Part Identified by a Number and Some Parts also Identified by a Title or Other Verbal Designation; however, I think that could be fixed by adding a see reference to 6.14.2.7.1.1 in the “then” clause.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      I suggest:

      6.14.2.7.1.1 Part Identified Only by a Number
      If each of the parts is identified only by a number, record the number of the part as a numeral.
      Precede the number with the abbreviation for Number (see appendix B (B.7)) in the language of the preferred title chosen according to 6.14.2.3.

      AND

      In 6.14.2.7.1.3, Part Identified Both by a Number and by a Title or Other Verbal Designation, “then” clause above final example: record the number of the part as a numeral.

      AND

      In 6.14.2.7.1.4, Each Part Identified by a Number and Some Parts also Identified by a Title or Other Verbal Designation, “then” clause: record the number of the part (see 6.14.2.7.1.1) followed by a comma and the title or other designation if there is one.

      NOTE:
      I have omitted the WG’s proposed sentence about the language being unknown — RDA does not provide instructions for this situation elsewhere (presumably the language can always be identified). What this revision doesn’t cover is what to do if the desired abbreviation for “number” in the appropriate language is not on the list in B.7. Is that a problem?

      • Dominique Bourassa says:

        Kathy,
        I think this is the best solution so far. It makes so much sense to add this to 6.14.2.7.1.1, 6.14.2.7.1.3-4. One quick question: should the reference “(see 6.14.2.7.1.1)” also be added to the last section of 6.14.2.7.1.3 to make sure what has been said in 6.14.2.7.1.1 also applies there?

  7. Steve Kelley says:

    I agree with Kathy’s suggestions.

Leave a Reply