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
Neil Godfrey wrote:
> 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
>
Received on Tue May 04 2010 - 10:29:57 EDT