The following question does not appear to have received any official response from LC for quite a while now.
Are the following three separate AAPs: under the title with a qualifier; under the title without qualifier; and under Qu, Yuan:
LCCN: n 81042808
130 _0 Chu ci (Ancient Chinese poems)
with the qualifier, versus:
LCCN: no2013008248
130 _0 Chu ci. ǂl English ǂs (Yu)
430 _0 楚辞. ǂl English ǂs (Xu)
without the qualifier, versus:
LCCN: nr 98034660
100 1_ Qu, Yuan, ǂd approximately 343 B.C.-approximately 277 B.C. ǂt Chu ci. ǂl Korean
under the personal name
for separate works, rather than separate expressions of the same work?
It appears that some discrepancy needs to be fixed in the 3 AAP. n 81042808 represents the expression of the original classical work; no2013008248 represents the Xu (note the typo in the record) version of the English expression. However, subfield $a Chu ci should've included the qualifier using the exact form in n 81042808. nr 98034660 is questionable as we know that this ancient elegy is not solely attributed by Qu, Yuan. My opinion would be to revise that AAP and make it a 130. What do others think?
You don't have permission to comment on this page.
Comments (2)
Hideyuki Morimoto said
at 7:32 am on Sep 7, 2016
The following question does not appear to have received any official response from LC for quite a while now.
Are the following three separate AAPs: under the title with a qualifier; under the title without qualifier; and under Qu, Yuan:
LCCN: n 81042808
130 _0 Chu ci (Ancient Chinese poems)
with the qualifier, versus:
LCCN: no2013008248
130 _0 Chu ci. ǂl English ǂs (Yu)
430 _0 楚辞. ǂl English ǂs (Xu)
without the qualifier, versus:
LCCN: nr 98034660
100 1_ Qu, Yuan, ǂd approximately 343 B.C.-approximately 277 B.C. ǂt Chu ci. ǂl Korean
under the personal name
for separate works, rather than separate expressions of the same work?
jiwu@loc.gov said
at 10:08 am on Sep 9, 2016
It appears that some discrepancy needs to be fixed in the 3 AAP. n 81042808 represents the expression of the original classical work; no2013008248 represents the Xu (note the typo in the record) version of the English expression. However, subfield $a Chu ci should've included the qualifier using the exact form in n 81042808. nr 98034660 is questionable as we know that this ancient elegy is not solely attributed by Qu, Yuan. My opinion would be to revise that AAP and make it a 130. What do others think?
You don't have permission to comment on this page.