Providing Greater Flexibility in Creating Variant Access Points (RDA Chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11)

RSC/ALA/3
1 August 2016

Providing Greater Flexibility in Creating Variant Access Points (RDA Chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11)

Abstract:
In Chapters 5-6, change the basis for variant access points for works and expressions from a “variant title for the work” to “a title of the work”. In Chapters 8-11, change the basis for variant access points for persons, families and corporate bodies from “a variant name for the [person/family/corporate body]” to “a name of the [person/family/corporate body]”. Update related references and instruction names in the text.

Submitted: Kathy Glennan, ALA Representative

Responses:

Renate Behrens, Europe Region Representative
Dave Reser, Library of Congress (LC) Representative
Ebe Kartus, Australian Committee on Cataloguing (ACOC) Representative
Bill Leonard, Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Representative (CCC) Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Providing Greater Flexibility in Creating Variant Access Points (RDA Chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11)

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    While the community responses generally agree that these instructions should be more flexible, CCC and LC have taken rather different approaches with their suggestions.

    Please comment below (using “reply”), under the specific entries for each approach.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    CCC Approach

    Don’t generalize to “title” — name the specific sub-types of “preferred title” and “variant title” instead.

    Take that same approach for names (use “preferred name” and “variant name”)

    Special concern raised about proposed change to 11.13.2.1 [incorrectly in response as 11.1.2.1]: as proposed this would “require variant access points for corporate bodies to be differentiated from other access points.” (This would include corporate body acronyms.)

    Do you agree with this approach? Do you share the concern about the proposed wording in 11.13.2.1?

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    LC approach

    LC questions the use of the title of the instruction (say, “Title of a Musical Work” in 6.14) instead of the name of the element (“Title of the Work”). This comes in to play for ALA’s proposed changes 3-6.

    I think LC agrees with Change 12, but this raised additional questions about bringing consistency to the instructions for AAPs (see the appendix in their response).

    — Additional changes?–

    Please comment on separate additional change possibilities in their own “threads” below

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #1: Simplifying Chapter 5?

    * Remove paragraphs in 5.1.4 that represent instructions
    * Replace 5.5 & 5.6 with references to the appropriate instructions in Chapter 6

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #2:

    Add “Construction additional VAPs…” paragraph to 6.31.3.2?

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #3

    Broaden 6.2.3.3? [if RSC agrees, will be fast track proposal]

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #4

    Create additional flexibility for recording a variant name as part of a variant name/title AAP [allowing the entire string to be in the vernacular, for example]

    • Yoko Kudo says:

      As for the name portion in non-Latin script, I personally think it’s something that the system should be able to infer and process in the future, because the AR for the name should already have a non-Latin variant AAP.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #5

    Consider where else “variant of an addition” should be incorporated in chapters 8-11?

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Possible additional change #6

    Standardize wording for additions to AAPs?

    LC’s response appendix identifies several places where “if important for identification” could be added, along with some other wording anomalies.

    If the RSC agrees with this suggestion, this work would need to be undertaken separately from the proposal.

    I would like to know if ALA thinks there is value in pursuing this further standardization.

Leave a Reply