Subject: [NGC4LIB] Preferred access point - some queries

From: Neil Godfrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:30:20 +0800

Apols if I have missed any previous explanation of this, but I am wondering
what reason/s lie behind RDA continuing the concept of "a preferred access
point" in cases of multiple authors for a work.

Is the reason primarily to accommodate the contingencies of MARC-based
cataloguing? Are there other reasons such as data exchange and
identification or other?

What difference/s does "a preferred access point" make in online databases
and user interfaces?

Thanks
Neil Godfrey

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:28:43 -0400

This is just my interpretation....

I think "preferred access point" is a really bad choice of term.  What 
they should have called this is "Citation Heading" or something like 
that, something involving the word "citation" or perhaps "reference". 

It's purpose is so you can "cite" or "reference" a different record in 
(for example) a 700 name-title.  In order to do that traditionally, you 
would use the "main entry" heading.   You need to be able to put a 
certain string in that field that can unambiguously identify a 
referenced/cited record.   This is the purpose of the "preferred access 
point", and the only purpose I can see.

Now, in 2010, the _better_ way to do this kind of "citation" or 
"reference" is with an actual controlled identifier (an accession 
number, a URI, etc).   I wish that RDA made it clear that this is 
_preferable_, and allowed you to use _only_ an identifier when 
available.  I am not sure if it does.  But even if it did, I think it is 
a good idea to -- as our legacy practices always have -- allow this kind 
of reference/citation using a controlled "heading" instead of an actual 
modern identifier, for backwards compatibility purposes if nothing else, 
but I'm not sure it doesn't have other utility as well.

Jonathan

---

From: Neil Godfrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:15:51 +0800

Thanks Jonathan.

As you say, there are other identifiers available, and others that have far
more inbuilt consistency.

It seems to me that the only reason RDA might be continuing with this is to
accommodate the MARC requirements. If so, that's fair enough.

But if we are looking at moving beyond MARC (e.g. DC based application
profiles) I don't see the need for a 100 / 700 division at all -- seems to
me to only create difficulties.

Neil

On 4 May 2010 22:28, Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think "preferred access point" is a really bad choice of term.  What they
> should have called this is "Citation Heading" or something like that,
> something involving the word "citation" or perhaps "reference".
> It's purpose is so you can "cite" or "reference" a different record in (for
> example) a 700 name-title.  In order to do that traditionally, you would use
> the "main entry" heading.   You need to be able to put a certain string in
> that field that can unambiguously identify a referenced/cited record.   This
> is the purpose of the "preferred access point", and the only purpose I can
> see.
>
> Now, in 2010, the _better_ way to do this kind of "citation" or "reference"
> is with an actual controlled identifier (an accession number, a URI, etc).
> I wish that RDA made it clear that this is _preferable_, and allowed you to
> use _only_ an identifier when available.  I am not sure if it does.  But
> even if it did, I think it is a good idea to -- as our legacy practices
> always have -- allow this kind of reference/citation using a controlled
> "heading" instead of an actual modern identifier, for backwards
> compatibility purposes if nothing else, but I'm not sure it doesn't have
> other utility as well.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> Neil Godfrey wrote:
>

---

From: Henry Lam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 13:39:43 +0800

Hi

The concept of 'preferred access point' in multiple-author work is let the
user knows who is the principal responsible body of the creation of the
work. RDA is a content rule and not a coding rule, so it has not special
instruction in related to 100 or 700 in Marc21.

From RDA Draft (2008)
6.27.1.3 Collaborative Works
If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies are collaboratively
responsible for creating the work, construct the preferred access point
representing the work by combining (in this order):
a) the preferred access point representing the person, family, or corporate
body with principal responsibility for the work, formulated according to the
guidelines and
instructions given under 9.1.1 , 10.10.1 , or 11.12.1 , as applicable

RDA does not use the word 'Main Entry', explained in the FAQ 4.8 in the RDA
website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdafaq.html#4-8):

"The concept of main entry as used in a card catalogue is no longer
applicable in online catalogues, and this term will not be used in RDA.
Nevertheless, there is still a need to choose a preferred access point for a
work or expression in order to create bibliographic citations, and to
collocate works and expressions in the online catalogue. Section 2 of RDA
will provide instructions on constructing the preferred access point
representing the work or expression."

So the main question is whether it is important to differentiate the primary
and the secondary responsible party.  If yes, there must be some
relationship term to indicate it in the bibliographic records.  I think the
terminology (of whether it should be called 'preferred access point) is
another matter.
With regards

Henry Lam

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Neil Godfrey <[email-masked]>wrote:

> they
> (for
> "reference"

---

From: Neil Godfrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 14:05:26 +0800

I'm thinking of the situation where some institutions attempt to preserve
MARC record information when migrating to, say, a Dublin Core based
application profile.

It is tempting to map the MARC 100 main entry value into DC "creator", and
added names from the 700s into DC "contributor".

But by doing this, one is assigning names that have equal roles and
responsibilities for a work (co-authors) into two different properties. One
is a "creator" and another a "contributor" even though they are both equally
responsible for the work.

Neil

On 5 May 2010 13:39, Henry Lam <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Neil Godfrey <[email-masked]
> >wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jonathan.
> >
> > > example) a 700 name-title.  In order to do that traditionally, you
> would
> > use
> > > I wish that RDA made it clear that this is _preferable_, and allowed
> you
> > to

---

From: Bernhard Eversberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 08:24:32 +0200

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> (for example) a 700 name-title.

Of course. For a while, in the RDA drafts, the term "citation" was 
explicitly used for this purpose. Then, however, it vanished without
a trace or notification.

B.Eversberg

---

From: Weinheimer Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:11:29 +0200

Henry Lam cites RDA:
<snip>

</snip>

Of course, this means that the functionality of the old main entry continues, and it is simply renamed to "preferred access point." Concerning the need for a *single* preferred access point to create bibliographic citations, I do not know what citation rules they are referring to, since all of the rules I have seen stipulate that when you are citing, you should cite all of the main authors, with various limitations on numbers (from three to seven or so). Sometimes, they mention editors as well.

There are also differing formats for entry. Although the first author is always entered under surname, the rest of the authors may also be entered under surname, or they may be in regular order. (For a very quick summary of these formats, see: http://www.lib.wsc.ma.edu/citation.htm)

So, if one of the purposes of the bibliographic record is to create automatic citations (which I have never seen stated explicitly anywhere, but I agree with it since that means we would really be beginning to understand how our records can be useful to our patrons in the modern information environment), there is still no need for a *single* preferred access point since none of the citation rules require it. It is also important to note that the actual forms of the name entered in these bibliographic citations come from what is found on the item and do not mention anything about using authorized forms (that I have seen at any rate). This would relate more to the 245$c, statement of responsibility.

The other purpose given for a single preferred access point, "to collocate works and expressions" doesn't make a lot of sense either, since all sorts of innovative displays could be created using multiple main authors.

For the process of cataloging, it would be much easier to have to distinguish only between main authors and secondary authors instead of having to follow the detailed rules for determining main entry.

I'm afraid that the continuation of the *single* preferred access point, i.e. the continuation of the policy that the 1xx field cannot be repeated for each main author with the result that in the 7xx, additional main authors are mixed in with editors and other secondary contributors, is just a continuation of MARC format, which in turn perpetuates the limitations of card and printed catalogs, where there was a need for a single main entry.
 
James Weinheimer  [email-masked]
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992

---

From: Bernhard Eversberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:17:40 +0200

> I'm afraid that the continuation of the *single* preferred access point, i.e. the continuation of the policy that the 1xx field cannot be repeated for each main author with the result that in the 7…
What's needed now is a textual citation that can serve as a unique name 
for the work, with an optional addition for the expression. This is an
extended or more refined  700 $a $t.

In a database context, the concept of "Scenario 1" is of course that you
link to a work record via a URI. But there has to be a textual
represenation as well, a brief and concise one - in a word, a 
"citation". In a presentation context, like an OPAC, you can of course
not present a label saying "preferred access point".

B.Eversberg

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:58:02 -0400

I think there are two uses of the word "citation" going around here, 
that we should be careful about.

Jim talks about the actual everyday use, an actual bibliographic 
reference for humans to use to identify the work.

But there's also a more technical use of "citation" (and perhaps 
"citation" isn't the right word here), that I was using before -- 
something not for humans at all, but simply sufficient description for 
_software_ to identify the work or manifestation "cited". A better term 
might be "machine-useable reference", or "really old 19th century kind 
of 'identifier'" (ha). 

For this latter use, it's for instance not important to list all the 
authors, it's just important to list sufficient information to uniquely 
and unambiguously identify the "thing cited".   Which could simply be an 
accession number or URI -- but the traditional "main entry (+ title)" is 
also designed for this very purpose, from a pre-computer age.

Jonathan

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:00:10 -0400

> not present a label saying "preferred access point".

Why does there have to be a textual citation embedded in the "source" 
record (the one containing the URI in your example)?

Of course, we want to tell the user what we are "linking to".  Software, 
if given an identifier, can take identifier, look up the record it 
identifies, take out the author, title, or whatever other attributes 
might be useful in the particular software's context, and display these 
to the user formatted however is best for that context.

Why duplicate (some of) this information in the "pointing" record, when 
it's all already there in the "pointed to" record? 

Jonathan

---

From: Bernhard Eversberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:11:42 +0200

> it's all already there in the "pointed to" record?

While you're perfectly right in theory, it won't do in practice, at
least not in all environments. Only those with permanent and reliable
internet access, including the source systems that are supposed to
contain the pointed to records. Of course you can have everything
in your own autonomous system, but wouldn't that be duplication as well?

No, I do think the rules do well in defining a standard "citation"
that should appear in textual form when a work or expression is
referred to. It is no good idea to leave it to implementers what
these citations look like when constructed from "pointed to" records
on the fly. Works and expressions, if we are going to think in these
terms and use the concepts seriously, need to be named in a
consistent way, not just numbered.
Of course, if you have advanced equipment and reliable technology,
you *can* have the system assemble the citations on the fly, and
this is certainly advantageous for more than one reason. Not,
however, without some rules for the outward appearance.

B.Eversberg