On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> The problem I see with your suggestion, Bob, is that it would be basically
> citing the exact same work that is cited in the first 670. Ordinarily, we
> wouldn't use a 670 OCLC citation when the only thing we were citing is the
> work we already had cited in the Work cat. citation. Your second 670 to me
> implies that there are OTHER resources by the author in OCLC that have that
> heading and usage.
I see some semantic problems with that argument. First, we are presuming
(without stating) that an authority record is being created for a work in
hand. Thus, the 1st 670 would be for that physical piece, the *work"
itself, where the date does not appear. One could either just accept the
date and enter it on the parallel bib. record, or try to justify it with
an authority record citing the source of the date.
The suggested 2nd 670 for info. from an OCLC record is not citing the
*work* being cataloged, but rather an OCLC record which exists as a
separate *work* in its own right.
The underlying rationale for (and presumption of) the 2nd 670 is that
the creator of the OCLC record being cited obtained the birthdate
information from an unspecified source (yet another *work*?) outside of
the *work* being cataloged and outside of OCLC.
The 2nd 670 is citing an OTHER resource, which is the existing OCLC
bib. record. Other *works* [referents or works by the same author] are
not represented in OCLC, but were [we are assuming] available to the
creator of the Swedish-language OCLC record.
John G. Marr
Cataloger
RMBA, UNMGL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Martha Watson
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
|
