Access Points for Expressions Task Group

Charge updated June 14, 2012

Charge:

Over the past year, several PCC RDA Task Groups raised concerns about how PCC catalogers should construct authorized access points for expressions. This topic was originally raised by the Decisions Needed Task Group (number N-27 in their table of issues); the need for a decision was also reinforced by the Task Group to Form or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues and the RDA Policy Statements Task Group.

RDA 6.27.3 reads: “Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression: Construct an access point representing a particular expression of a work….” There is an LC PS that specifies when and what kind of distinctions LC will make. However, as Kathy Glennan notes in her March 2012 article in Notes:

“Some challenges arise when making distinctions in access points for expressions of works, such as translations, arrangements, different recorded performances, and so forth. RDA has yet to fully grapple with the implications of carrying out these instructions to their full extent, since creating or displaying lengthy character strings can clutter record displays. Discovery tools will need to balance this issue with the ability to provide much greater specificity to users. For example, to distinguish among a library’s various sound recordings of Mahler’s Second Symphony, the RDA access points could start with the established character string for the work itself, and then add elements addressing the format, the date of the recording, and the conductor:

Mahler, Gustav, 1860–1911. Symphonies, no. 2, C minor. Performed music. 1949. Bernstein.

Mahler, Gustav, 1860–1911. Symphonies, no. 2, C minor. Performed music. 1963. Bernstein.”

These additional examples from belles lettres (punctuation made up) may help convey further to the Task Force the nature of the problem:

Homer. Odyssey (Fagle)

Homer. Odyssey (Fitzgerald)

Homer. Odyssey (Latimer)

Homer. Odyssey (Merrill)

Homer. Odyssey (Pope)

Homer. Odyssey (Rieu. 1945)

Homer. Odyssey (Rieu. 1991)

Because RDA allows for greater differentiation in expression access points than was permitted under AACR2, the number of options can get overwhelming and confusing. For authorized access points for expressions, this Task Group is challenged to recommend policy for PCC. What guidance should PCC give to its catalogers in this area? Are expression-level authority records another facet of the problem of “granular/differentiated” or “undifferentiated” records (as with conference headings)? Should an “undifferentiated” expression authority record be formulated? Should multiple granular/differentiated expression authority records be created? Is there some kind of middle ground; if so, what are the conditions and circumstances? What are the impacts of this decision for bibliographic records? There are already some differentiated expression authority records in the LC/NACO authority file (specific performances of musical works, different translations in the same language). PCC needs to have a consistent policy on the level of differentiation in PCC bibliographic records, and catalogers need to have clear instructions about what to do.

The Task Group should consult the PCC RDA Policy Statement Task Group’s recommendations, especially the recommendation for LC PS 6.27.3 (pp. 80-81).

Some of the questions raised at the 2012 OpCo meeting that this Task Group should consider in preparing their recommendations include:

·  Once an authorized access point for a differentiated expression has been established in a NACO record, must all PCC catalogers use it in BIBCO records from that point forward (or will they have a choice to continue using an “undifferentiated” AACR2-style version of the access point if desired)?

·  Must older bib records containing access points for the same expression be updated?

·  What will LC catalogers do if they encounter (in copy cataloging) a BIBCO record that has a “differentiated” access point?

·  Can a BIBCO record be updated so that an undifferentiated access point gets changed to a differentiated one?

·  In what order should the differentiating elements be given in the access point?

The PCC Access Points for Expressions Task Group is charged to:

1.  Prepare a policy recommendation and supporting PCC guidelines to describe when and how to create authority records for expression-level data, and for the use of those authorized access points in bibliographic records. Include a recommendation on the use of Field 336 in expression records.

2.  Frame the guidelines within a definition and description of the problem so that both the concept and the implementation details will be understood by the PCC and broader professional community.

3.  Recommend an implementation strategy (including a rationale/explanation) and timetable for these guidelines.

The primary goal of this Task Group is to provide clear guidelines for PCC catalogers to achieve insofar as possible a consistent bibliographic database.

The Task Group's guidelines and report will be reviewed by the PCC Policy Committee and then announced to PCCLIST and posted to the PCC web site.

RDA-related task groups are required to provide two appendices to indicate whether or not RDA-related actions are required by the Secretariat.

Appendix A: RDA implementation dependencies appendix:

RDA-related task groups are asked to prepare an appendix to the final report with a timeline/calendar that:

·  Outlines the steps that need to be taken for completing RDA-related tasks

·  Identifies who will be responsible for those tasks

·  States the time frame and order in which tasks should be accomplished prior to implementation

·  Lists any other dependencies that might need to be considered.

This appendix is required of all PCC RDA task groups, and all timelines/calendars will be compiled by the Secretariat to develop a comprehensive RDA implementation calendar. If no RDA-related actions are identified please add a statement to the report indicating that no action is needed.

Appendix B: Revision of PCC RDA Frequently Asked Questions:

Task group members are asked to be aware of the PCC RDA FAQ as they do their work and to list suggested revisions in this appendix. The Secretariat will update the PCC RDA FAQ based on this appendix. If no RDA-related actions are identified please add a statement to the report indicating that no action is needed.

Time Frame:

·  Appointment of group: June 2012

·  Deadline for guidelines and report to be submitted to PCC Policy Committee: October 15, 2012

·  Deadline for PCC Policy Committee comment and approval: November 5, 2012

·  Announcement to PCCLIST and posting on PCC web site, requesting public comments: by Thanksgiving 2012

·  Implementation date: The TG will recommend an implementation strategy and timetable

Chain of Reporting: PCC Policy Committee

Task Group Members:

Stakeholder / Name / Email
Chair / Matthew Haugen /
Music community: Chair of NACO Music funnel (who may wish to delegate) / Mark Scharff /
Law community: Chair of NACO Law funnel (who may wish to delegate) / George Prager /
Film/Video community / Thuy-Anh Dang /
RDA monographic cataloger / Barbara Bushman /
OCLC / Jay Weitz /
LC / Kate James /
PoCo liaison / Paul Frank /