6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3

From CCDA
Revision as of 08:54, 19 September 2013 by Tracey Snyder (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3 Compilations of Works

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment. You must be logged in to comment.

Please include in your comments:

  • Your name/liaison organization
  • Month/day/year

Never copy and paste over the entire original wiki document.

General comments

Text of proposal


I think much of EURIG's concerns are already addressed in RDA, although it's possible that the language could be clearer. The JSC has already recognized (in the various responses to ACOC/5) that there's a missing instruction for choosing the preferred title of a compilation, although I don't think any constituency has addressed that problem yet.

As ALA pointed out in its response to ACOC/5 last year:

"any RDA instruction that applies to “works” applies to compilations of works. Specifically, while recording the preferred title of compilations of works of one person, family, or corporate body are covered explicitly at 6.2.2.10, recording the preferred title of compilations of works by more than one person, family or corporate bodies is covered by the general guidelines on choosing the preferred title (6.2.2.3, etc.). Likewise, while there are specific instructions on constructing authorized access points representing a compilation of works by more than one person, family, or corporate body at 6.27.1.4, constructing an authorized access point representing a compilation of works by one person, family, or corporate body is covered by the general instructions at 6.27.1.2."

As I understand the Final Report of the Working Group on Aggregates, flexibility is key. Aggregating expressions "may, or may not, be considered significant enough to warrant distinct bibliographic identification." (p. 5). I think it's also important to recognize that the compiler ("creator of compilation" in EURIG's terms) does not always have the same level of creativity. Per the WG's report (also quoted in EURIG/Discussion/3 on p. 7): "This effort may be relatively minor--two existing novels published together-- or it may represent a major effort resulting in a aggregate that is significantly more that [i.e., than] a sum of its parts (for example an anthology). (also p. 5).

Based on this understanding, I think it is critical that any approach to "solving" the problems in RDA with aggregating works/expressions needs to be optional.

Some specific concerns about the EURIG paper:

1. More clarity is needed between when to record information about the aggregate (RDA 6.2, etc.) and what is needed when building an authorized access point (RDA 6.27, etc.).
2. Several times, the paper uses the phrase "describes each work separately" in relation to instructions in Chapter 6. I believe that Chapter 6 is not about describing, but about naming. The use of "describing" makes the paper harder to interpret.
3. In their description of RDA's approach, EURIG twice asserts that "RDA regards the titles proper of the manifestations that embody the compilation as variant access points for [that] aggregating work..." when the preferred title is a conventional collective title (p. 2, section 1.1.1 and 1.1.2). I think the singular/plural construction here is backwards, and in all cases is the same as the 1st paragraph in 1.2 (p. 3)-- when there is a single title for a compilation, it is that title, and not the title of the individual works in the compilation, that is the variant title for the compilation.
4. EURIG expresses concerns about using the title proper (or in their terminology "titles proper") as a variant title for a compilation, stating that it could be misleading. However, I think that this variant should be supplied, since it is how a particular expression has been manifested. Anything that's misleading is outside of the control of catalogers -- we can't help it if publishers add to bibliographic confusion!
5. EURIG asserts that the RDA rule for the Alternative in 6.2.2.10.3 is "very rigid" and notes that LC practice does not apply the Alternative as written. I'm wondering if this is really just an application decision. What part of 6.2.2.10.3 is core? Does the "core-ness" matter in how the instruction is (or should be) worded?
6. EURIG does not seem to equate the I.2 term "compiler" with their proposed "creator of compilation" -- but I'm not really seeing a difference in meaning or intent between these two terms.
7. Sometimes it seems to me that the examples/situations EURIG describes would be handled better as a whole/part relationship (for example the optional addition in 1.1.1, p. 4), but I suppose that as long as this is optional, I could live with it.
8. Given that RDA 5.1.2 states “The terms work and expression should be read, where applicable, to include not only an individual entity, but also aggregates and components of such entities (i.e., the term work should be read to include aggregate works and components of works as well as individual works, etc.).”, I'm not convinced that we need to regularly introduce the term "aggregate" (etc.) into Chapter 6.
9. I'm surprised to see the use case on p. 4 & 5 about the importance of identifying the aggregating work. I think this is already happening, but perhaps not as EURIG envisions it. I would welcome other thoughts from CC:DA on this.
10. I think that the laundry list provided in 1.2.2, optional addition, may be helpful as elements to record; in fact several things on that list already have corresponding RDA instructions. Thus, I wonder if this really is more related to building authorized access points.
11. How is "2 Variant title for a compilation" (p. 5) not already covered in RDA?
12. In 3.1 (p. 5), why are there different instructions for differentiation from what already exists in 6.27.1.9?
13. In 3.2 (p. 5), why wouldn't you name the aggregating work by the compiler, if this person (etc.) has creative responsibility? Also in this section, RDA already tells you to differentiate access points that are the same or similar to existing access points.
14. Some of EURIG's concerns about compiler as creator may be addressed by ACOC/7.
15. Disagree with 2nd paragraph on p. 8 about recording the original language being against RDA practice; this is now a core element.

Kathy Glennan (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2013 (PDT)


Here are three different viewpoints from MLA members, posted with their permission:


In general, I believe that the paper identifies supposed problems with compilations in RDA that are not problems at all. I find the discussion about AAP for compilations and the discussion about compilers as creators to be extremely problematic. Specific comments below.

p. 4 1.1.1, Optional addition: While the language would need work, I agree with the concept of the Optional addition since it fills in a gap in RDA: if an aggregate work was the complete works of a single author, there was no instruction that allowed you to name each of the works as well.

p. 4 1.1.1 Optional addition, 1.1.2, Alternative: I agree that naming the separate works should allow for policy variation. In the current RDA text, the choice seems to be between a) naming each of the works b) using only a collective title, or c) both. There is no option to name some of the works. However, this should be in the main instruction as well

p. 4-5, 1.2.1 and 1.2.2: There is no need for this additional instruction, since compilations of works by different persons etc. is covered explicitly by the 1st paragraph of 6.2.2.8: "This instruction applies to single works and to compilations of works by different persons, families, and corporate bodies."


p. 5, Optional addition 1.2.2: The idea of the optional addition does represent a gap in RDA, in that there is no way to have a preferred title for a compilation with no collective title. However, this should be a part of 6.2.2 and not part of a new instruction. Also the optional addition is too heavy handed. The only thing you would need to come up with is a devised title, which should be left to catalogers judgment. If additional attributes are wanted, the instructions at 6.3 through 6.7 should suffice.

p.5 3.1: To me, this is already covered by the instructions at 6.27.1.2 (a work can be a single work by one person or an aggregate of multiple works by one person). However, I do not object if RDA is more explicit about this situation. However, I disagree with EURIG's idea to have an instruction here to add the "creator of the compilation" (more on that below) in parentheses after the preferred title. If differentation is sought in a collective AAP, the instructions at 6.27.1.9 already allow for this and offer greater flexibility in what should be added to the AAP,

p.5 3.2 b): once again, this is covered by 6.27.1.9.

p. 6 4. Status of the compiler: I had major problems with this entire section. The "creator of compilation" relationship is ill-conceived. For printed materials, this information is easy enough to choose and then record. But when you get into non-print materials, we start to have some major problems. For sound recordings, if you have different works by different composers what should you choose? Is the label the creator? If one performer, is it that person? What if you have multiple performers? Is it the producer? The possibilities are endless. If we followed this path, we would have to reinstitute all the AACR2 ch. 21 rules again for sound recordings, just to get a grip on things, something I think the JSC wants to get away from.

Also, by having this new relationship at the level of Creator introduces complications for work AAP in ch. 6. The general instruction at 6.27.1.2 says that for a work created by one person, it is the AAP for the person, followed by the preferred title. Since creator for the compilation is a Creator, the AAP for a compilation of diverse works by diverse people would have to be "Editor of compilation. Preferred title of compilation." This contradicts 3,2 of EURIG's discussion which proposed that the AAP for a compilation would be the title of the compilation followed by the creator for the compilation in parentheses. Is a compilation of works by the same person now a collaborative work, since the editor is now considered a Creator?

If a relationship designator of "creator of compilation" is needed (which I believe it isn't) it makes more sense from a practical standpoint to have it in I.2.2 as a other creator associated with the work. That way we would avoid these problems of AAP construction in ch. 6.

Damian Iseminger, New England Conservatory, 22 August 2013


I feel that the general ideas presented in this discussion paper have merit and should be further explored [despite some logical inconsistencies within the paper itself and its execution of examples]. At the fundamental level, I believe that catalogers should be allowed the option to consider those entities which create compilations (at a much broader definition than that currently found under “Compiler” in RDA) to be creators themselves (in certain circumstances).

First, I must make clear that in agreeing with the discussion paper in principle, I am assuming that the ideas presented include the carrying forth of two very important concepts from the FRBR Final report of the Working group on aggregates: 1. “An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does not contain aggregated works themselves.” 2. “Although every aggregate manifestation also embodies an aggregating expression of the aggregating work, these aggregating expressions may, or may not, be considered significant enough to warrant distinct bibliographical identification.” [This is most important.]

While RDA 17.4.2.3 gives one the flexibility to describe a compilation through Composite Description, there are many cases in which an AAP could assist users in finding or identifying a resource, or collocating several resources within a catalog. RDA’s instructions for compilations of works by different creators (RDA 6.27.1.4) will often construct an AAP which is almost meaningless without actually referring to the bib record itself. Why create AAPs which cannot be interpreted independently? (Furthermore, Module 6 of the NACO Training Program indicates that AAPs for compilations (130s) should be constructed for all PCC-level cataloging.)

Using AAPs for an Aggregating Works in bibliographic description would not represent the Aggregate Works themselves (i.e. not a single AAP representing all the works contained within the compilations), but these Aggregating Work AAPs COULD allow catalogers to create fairly simple-to-understand access points which I believe would be closer to user’s mental models of the bibliographic universe. Following the EURIG working group’s suggestion to upgrade the status of a compiler [not the RDA definition] to a Creator would help in this regard. But, I would rather that the definition of the RDA term "compiler" be reworked to include the EURIG "creator of compilation" (formerly RDA "editor of compilation").

I do NOT agree with EURIG’s suggestions for an exceptional method of constructing Aggregating Work AAPs, but instead believe that the current instructions in RDA 6.27 actually create more comprehensible AAPs for these types of works. If the “Creator of compilation” is indeed a creator, then catalogers should follow 6.27 as written: combine the AAP for the creator with the preferred title of the compilation. The decision to create and use this type of AAP can be based on the cataloger’s judgement on whether the Aggregating Work merits separate description or not.

Here are some examples of cases when (in my mind) AAPs for Aggregating Works can be helpful in the catalog [all compilations of works by multiple creators]:

[from RDA 6.27.1.4 examples]

Rousset, Jean. Anthologie de la poésie baroque française

Lien, Carsten. Exploring the Olympic Mountains

Cescatti, Olimpio. Tutti i libretti di Bellini

[“Bellini, Vincenzo, 1801-1835. Operas. Librettos” is no longer a valid AAP]

[and other examples which would benefit greatly from this type of AAP. Most of these are commonly referred by the editor’s name: The Strunk; The Burkhart anthology; The Weiss-Taruskin, etc.]

Strunk, W. Oliver (William Oliver), 1901-1980. Source readings in music history

Burkhart, Charles (Charles L.). Anthology for musical analysis

Weiss, Piero. Music in the Western World

[authority record could be created with: 400 for Taruskin, Richard. Music in the Western World]

Wennerstrom, Mary H. Anthology of musical structure and style

Atlas, Allan W. Anthology of Renaissance music

[example from FRBR report]

Taylor, Arlene G., 1941- Understanding FRBR

[example from EURIG 3]

Régnier-Bohler, Danielle. Légende arthurienne

But the most interesting part of this idea is, as Daniel states, the Aggregating Work AAPs could be extremely useful for audio recordings--a nice workaround (“hack” if you will) to bring back principal performer main entry. I think Damian’s concern about multiple creators can be addressed fairly simply by applying the RDA 6.27 instructions for collaborations, i.e. use the entity with principal responsibility or the first-named. An audio recording could have any number of people involved as a “creator of compilation”: performer, conductor, producer, manager, record label, arts foundation, etc. The cataloger decides which entity has principal responsibility and uses that name as the main entry; any other significant “creator of compilation” can be traced in 7XX fields (or an authority record could be created for collaborative cross-references). If the cataloger deems that the Aggregating Work is not important enough for distinct bibliographical description, then the AAP is not created. (One example when the Aggregating Work MAY not be worthy of an AAP is when a record label creates a themed compilation with recordings of various composers by various artists, e.g. Baroque favourites, Romantic symphonies, Best of the Renaissance, Atlantic rhythm and blues.)

[from EURIG 3]

100 Greindl…

240 Josef Greindl chante Schubert & Loewe

700 Klust…

700 Schubert… Songs. Selections

700 Loewe… Songs. Selections


100 Spears, Britney

240 Circus

[no user would ever understand the AAP: 130 0 Circus (2008)]


100 Coltrane, John.

240 My favorite things

700 Tyner, McCoy.

700 Davis, Steve, 1929-1987.

700 Jones, Elvin.

700 12 Rodgers, Richard, 1902-1979. Sound of music. My favorite things.

700 12 Porter, Cole, 1891-1964. Seven lively arts. Ev'ry time we say goodbye.

700 12 Gershwin, George, 1898-1937. Porgy and Bess. Summertime.

700 12 Gershwin, George, 1898-1937. Girl crazy. But not for me.


100 Ipata, Carlo.

240 Neapolitan flute concertos

710 Auser musici.


So, in summary:

1. I think the option to create an AAP for an Aggregating Work in certain situations could be useful for discovery, identification, and collocation.

2. I think that upgrading the status of “editor of compilation” to creator can help with constructing more comprehensible AAPs for these Aggregating Works. But I would argue for redefining RDA's current "compiler."

3. I do not agree with the EURIG discussion paper’s method of constructing these AAPs, but instead would prefer to use existing construction described in 6.27.

4. I haven’t yet figured out what I think about the construction of AAPs for compilations of works by a single creator, those which would use conventional collective titles. The EURIG proposed construction doesn’t seem to be quite right to me, but I haven’t come up with a better solution.

5. There are still some bibliographical situations which must be discussed, e.g. compilations of various creators without a clearly-stated compiler, greatest hits compilations for which a record label is solely responsible (e.g. posthumous), compilations of previously released albums (e.g. box sets, usually publisher-created).

Kevin Kishimoto, University of Chicago, 17 September 2013


I agree most heartily with Kevin's first two paragraphs, including the parenthetical qualifiers.

It’s going to be very hard to strike a balance that: is consistent across resource types, yet honors the quirks of certain areas, like music recordings; provides catalogers with enough guidance so that we’re all applying the rules consistently and with ease, yet gives us enough room for judgment so that the results aren't too silly-looking; and, adheres to some sort of philosophical basis while also matching users’ conceptions of this stuff that we catalog.

The music community is discouraged from asking for special treatment for our materials in RDA. But I just can’t see any way to treat all materials the same way without making a silly mess of certain types of materials. So, should RDA just provide a really loose structure for how to consider compilations and compilers? And then individual communities like music can just use lots of leeway in interpreting RDA/creating community-based best practices?

As convoluted as it was, the “principal performer” principle in AACR2 was very useful for popular music (although, I would argue, less useful for classical music). As others have suggested, perhaps we have an opportunity here to somehow resurrect or reconfigure “principal performer” (but in a limited way). But I don’t know if we could disguise it as compiler/creator of compilation. What we need is to engineer some way to get poor, beleaguered Britney into the 100, but not necessarily because she is a compiler/creator of compilation. In fact, isn't a Britney Spears album more of a collaboration? That opens up another can of worms. We can usually tell the difference between a compilation and a collaboration for books fairly easily—a collaboration usually names the authors together on the title page, and a compilation usually has a table of contents that lists the book’s individual essays and their respective authors. I think the difference is less clear for popular sound recordings. On an album of new songs, Britney’s got a team of songwriters and producers and performers, and she makes a creative contribution, as the most noticeable performer. I might lean toward thinking of it as a collaboration. But what if she does an album of covers of '80s songs with disparate authorship? I guess that makes it a compilation, although there is still a strong collaborative aspect, in that she's still working with a team of producers and performers. We don’t want to be spending our time thinking about the subtle differences between the two, we just want to put Britney in the 100, taking the huge hint that we have been given by the record label when they put her face and her name real big on the cover. We want some provision in RDA (or its supplemental documentation, like the Best Practices) to do the common sense thing: put her in the 100. (I think there is less of a case for putting Carlo Ipata in the 100, as we would have in AACR2.) What are the implications for motion pictures, which are often highly collaborative, but sometimes are principally the work of an auteur?

Tracey Snyder, Cornell University, 19 September 2013

Posted by Tracey Snyder, MusLA, 19 September 2013
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3&oldid=9985
wikis.ala.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-41
35396
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MIWRUJULSWY6H7TEFKITRVNOFOM3KCIK
<urn:uuid:306cb23c-cd10-4f73-bfc0-039383e23ae6>
2014-09-19T18:16:32Z
216.80.72.149
sha1:O5YBWX3SGFZAXHNJKZQHCOJEDGKGOPA4
<urn:uuid:fe3316bf-87ab-4b9c-b19a-19da30e0b5dc>
http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php?title=6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3&oldid=9985
length
response
<urn:uuid:3025aa63-d349-477a-8669-5631683ad579>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-196-40-205.us-west-1.compute.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-41
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for September 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf