[DCRM-L] Question about numerical part of a multi-volume work

[Gemberling, Ted P]

Bob and everyone,
You can see the record I created at OCLC #966695215. I followed Bob’s suggestion of not including a 240. Instead I included a note indicating the volume was part of a larger set and a 773 linking it to its record. Let me know if I made any mistakes with the 773 because I am not used to using this linking field, since it doesn’t work in our Horizon catalog. But we are moving to a next generation ILS soon, and I hope such linking fields will be functional there.

I wanted to raise a more “philosophical” point about something Bob said. I hope Jane, Stephen, and others can get something out of this, too. He said that “there isn’t any such general breakdown of the works of Galen” that would allow us to divide them into books or volumes of complete works. The “sexta classis” designation in my volume is only relevant to this particular manifestation. But that got me thinking, when does the designation of parts of someone’s works become authoritative? I’m guessing that, obviously, if during Galen’s lifetime he had published his complete works with this as book 6, that would be authoritative. This is not because it’s something editors did, centuries later.

But then I got to thinking that even some divisions we accept in literature may not go back to the original authors. For example, I believe I read a scholarly source that suggested the books of Samuel and Kings in the Bible were not originally separate works, and that the division we have today is due to later rabbinic editors. Yet our NAF has no difficulty distinguishing them. So is the distinction a matter of tradition or reference sources? Once it becomes authoritative enough in reference sources, we can use it as a basis for authorities?

I’d like to get the input of Bob or anybody else who wants to respond to this.

Thanks and happy holidays,
Ted Gemberling

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 2:14 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about numerical part of a multi-volume work

The reason I suggested not using an authorized access point for the aggregate is that it gets overly complicated.

The sixth volume of this compilation, on its own, is a selection of the works of Galen. But the set in its entirety is the complete works. Volume six of this particular compilation isn’t “volume 6” of the complete works of Galen, there isn’t any such general breakdown of the works of Galen. So I don’t really see any way to bring out, using the authorized access point, the “sixth-volumeness” of this. It isn’t the sixth volume of the complete works (this particular edition happens to have some of the works in a volume labeled the sixth volume); and if you are considering volume 6 all by itself, that’s “Works. Selections ([some qualifier])” but it isn’t the sixth volume of itself.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:44 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about numerical part of a multi-volume work

Thanks Jane, Stephen, and Bob for the responses. All of you reminded me a uniform title is what is needed.

I think Bob’s suggestion is better because I am uneasy about making up a Latin title for the subpart, though I imagine it is pretty correct.

However, contrary to the suggestion to use just 700 $t’s, I do think there is a need for a 240 because 245 starts with “Sexta,” implying that it’s part of a collection of some sort. I have also added 700 $t’s the for the individual selections (there are only 4 in this volume). Unfortunately, none of the $t’s are established. I thought of trying to establish some but found that the titles in OCLC vary so much from edition to edition, so I’m ducking from that hard job! I just transcribed them from my volume, except for changing consonantal u’s internal to words to v’s.

In adding the 240, I wasn’t sure if there was any way to indicate the part relationship. To be honest, I just couldn’t find any examples in the manuals for anything more complicated than this:

Works. ǂk Selections. ǂl Latin. ǂf 1550

Is there any way to add n’s and p’s to that?

Thanks again for the information and suggestions.

Ted Gemberling

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 12:39 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about numerical part of a multi-volume work

For a DCRM(B) record the 245 needs to faithfully transcribe what’s on the title page, which you say doesn’t include “Galeni omnia quae extant opera”. I don’t think 1B6 is contemplating a situation where the main title doesn’t appear anywhere at all on the book. (Unless your copy is imperfect and happens to be missing the page that has “Galeni omnia quae extant opera” on it?)

240 should contain the preferred title for the work (that is, the portion of the authorized access point for the work that follows the authorized access point for the author, everything from the title on), which in this case is “Works. $k Selections (…) …” This aggregate work in volume 6 contains a selection of Galen’s works; since there are lots of aggregate works that contain selections of Galen you need to add a parenthetical qualifier to “Works. Selections” because otherwise the authorized access point for the work will conflict with that of another work (i.e. another set of selections). I find it easier in cases like this simply to dispense with the authorized access point for the (aggregate) work as a whole and instead include access points for the individual works/expressions in the volume (in 700 fields). This seems to me to be RDA’s preferred solution under 6.27.2.3 (“construct authorized access points for each of the parts”), and in my opinion is more helpful to users of the catalog anyway. That’s not always possible (maybe there are 50 works/expressions) but usually it is possible.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Jane Stemp Wickenden
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:20 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question about numerical part of a multi-volume work

Ted,

Personally I would have what you see on the title page as 245, and cover the overall title with 240 $a Omnia quae extant opera. $n 6. $p. Chirurgiae pars.

But I may be behind the times.

Jane
On 20 December 2016 02:37:36 GMT+00:00, "Gemberling, Ted P" <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
I am cataloging the 6th part (actually the 7th) of an 11-volume work. You can see a record for all the volumes at OCLC #808232373. I don’t consider it appropriate to use that record because we only have the one volume. We put signatures on our DCRM(b) records, and I would not have them for any of the other volumes. Also, I can’t verify the transcription for them. So I want to create a record just for our volume. The problem is that the title for the whole set (Galeni omnia quae extant opera) is not on our volume. I tried creating a record like this:


Galeni omnia quae extant opera. ǂn Sexta classis, ǂp eam chirurgi[ae] partem amplectitur, qu[ae] ad cucurbitulas, scarificationes, hirudines, deriuationem, reuulsionem, ac phlebotomiam spectat ...


Is that possible in DCRM(b)? Does it conflict with rule 1B6? 1B6 seems to say do something like this: Galeni omnia quae extant opera. Sexta classis : ǂb eam chirurgi[ae] partem …


Or is that incorrect, too? 1B6 seems to be about a case where the title page (or chief source of information) has the title of the whole work. You transpose it if the name for the part comes first and add a note indicating the transposition. But in my case, I only know the name of the whole work from a bibliographic record in OCLC. Would you state that in the record for the part? Would it have to be in brackets in the 245?


Any guidance you can give will be helpful.


Thanks,


Ted P. Gemberling
Historical Collections Cataloger
UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B
1720 Second Ave. South
Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013
Phone: (205)934-2461
Fax: (205)934-3545



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161223/c2eac13e/attachment-0001.html>