Revisions to Instructions for Additions to Access Points Representing Musical Works with Distinctive Titles ( and

31 July 2015

Revisions to Instructions for Additions to Access Points Representing Musical Works with Distinctive Titles ( and



Submitted by Damian Iseminger, Chair, JSC Music Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Revisions to Instructions for Additions to Access Points Representing Musical Works with Distinctive Titles ( and

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    This proposal addresses a very real problem for music catalogers. While I fully support the desired outcome, I do not agree with separating the additions between two sub-instructions:

    * Additions to Access Points Representing Music Works with Distinctive Titles
    * Further Additions to Distinguish Access Points Representing Musical Works with Distinctive Titles

    This really cries out for collapsing these additions into a single instruction.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #1 1st paragraph: Agree to wording changes. 2nd paragraph, option A: strongly disagree with using the “categories” terminology. These are all elements. (Thus, I prefer option B.) Disagree with changing the reference from to “6.15, as instructed at” This is not value added, in my opinion., option A: I think it would be better to separate out the references to 6.3 and 6.6 into separate bulleted/lettered entries. Note that option B completely omits a reference to 6.6. For the record, I personally do not consider piano music to be a form of work, although the RDA Glossary might just contradict me: “form of work: a class or genre to which a work belongs.”

    • Diane Napert says: The original seems fine since it references 6.15, option A: I also think it is clearer to separate out 6.3 Form and 6.6 Other Distinguishing …

      I never thought of “piano music” as a form of work either

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #2: Exceptions to

    Exception a: OK if will still exist

    Exception b: Is this really needed? is about making additions that break conflicts. If adding an element doesn’t break a conflict, then I’m not sure that the existing instruction would support adding it. (However, I recognize that this is a large part of the existing problem with the instruction, so if this exception makes things clearer, I can live with it.)

    Exception c: I prefer this as a reference to There’s nothing in the “primary” instruction about serial numbers. This should probably be a separate “main” paragraph and would look something like:
    “For different works with identical titles that are part of a consecutively numbered series, use the numeric designation to distinguish the access points (see”

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #3

    OK, but the Oxford comma needs to be added.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    CHANGE #4

    OK, if keeping as a separate instruction.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    I would personally prefer collapsing these instructions into a single , such as:

    Add one or more of the following elements, as appropriate:
    a) the medium of performance (see
    b) form of work (see 6.3)
    c) numeric designation of a musical work (see 6.16)
    d) key (see 6.17)
    e) year of completion of composition (see 6.4)
    f) year of original publication (see 6.4)
    g) place of composition (see 6.5)
    h) another distinguishing characteristic of the work (see 6.6).

    * Is CC:DA generally in favor of this approach?
    * Should the instruction be to select “one or more” or should it be just “one “?
    * Should a reference to preferred order be retained, or is that more appropriate for application profiles?

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      As I suggested above, be as exactly parallel to as possible. So yes, “one or more”. I would replace “e” and “f” with “date of the work (see 6.4)” and “g” with “place of origin of the work (se 6.5)”. That’s what the elements referred to are called.

      I recommend not keeping the order of preference language. Leave it to the cataloger to pick the appropriate element (or application profile)

    • Diane Napert says:

      I like the approach

      I think “one or more” is fine

      I’m partial to a preferred order

  7. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    I had trouble following this proposal, since I was initially unaware that “distinctive” has a special meaning in the context of music cataloging (it doesn’t mean that the title is sui generis, it just means that it doesn’t consist solely of a work type). Having slashed my way through the dense thickets of my own ignorance, I can say that I agree with the simplified approach that Kathy is suggesting. I also agree that with Bob Maxwell that the list of additional elements should be parallel to as much as possible; “date of work” can thus do duty for both date of composition and date of publication as in 6.4. I suppose place of origin has to be included for the sake of consistency, though I would think it would not be very useful for musical works.
    I agree that “one or more” is preferable, since there will be situations when multiple tie breakers are required.
    It seems undesirable to prescribe a hard and fast order of preference. The fact that elements that bring out musical aspects of the work (medium of performance, form, numeric designation, key) come first in the list should be enough of a hint to consider these before reverting to the elements that apply to every type of material (i.e. date and place and “other”).

Leave a Reply