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"The concept of main entry as used in a card catalogue is no longer
applicable in online catalogues, and this term will not be used in RDA.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 <neilgodfrey1_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> > 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 Wed May 05 2010 - 01:39:58 EDT