I understand your point. In the case of my bilingual edition of Intruder in the Dust, it certainly seems that RDA's total agnosticism about MARC, ISBD, etc., allows us to construct the authorized access point for the English expression as a 100/245 and for the Spanish expression as a 700 name/title entry.
If the English manifestation title in my example differed from the preferred title used in the work's AAP ("William Faulkner's Intruder in the dust," say), then it would seem we could use a 100/240 to represent the English expression combined with a 700 name/title entry for the Spanish expression. Would you agree?
When we use a 100 with the 245 of my bilingual edition, and then make 700 name/title entries for both the expressions within it, it would seem we have a sort of superfluous or misplaced "creator" field. The 245 represents nothing but a manifestation title. I don't see a provision in RDA for associating a "creator" with a manifestation--a "creator" is only associated with a work.
What does the 100 go with? Why is it used?
I should make clear that my expertise on RDA, either in its own words or as taught through PCC, is still pretty raw. I honestly was not sure that we were even being asked to make a 100 plus two 700 name/title entries in the example I gave. I gather that we are but that others are also doubtful about it.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
John Marr is right. We are being instructed to use a 700 field that *totally duplicates* the 100/240 or 100/245, when there are multiple expressions of the same work in the manifestation. If we are told elsewhere that 100/24X constitutes the AAP when there's only one expression of the work (for the *vast* majority of the resources cataloged), why in the world doesn't it constitute the AAP for one of the expressions if another expression happens to be included?
This is not RDA confusion; RDA doesn't tell us to use 100 fields, it tells us to use an authorized access point for the work/expression (saying nothing about whatever specific container we're using for the data). This is MARC confusion. Or rather, this is PCC confusion/inconsistency about the function of MARC tags.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for
> multi- expression manifestations
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:
> > Say you’ve got a book that is a bilingual edition of a creative work.
> > 245: : Intruder in the dust = $b Intruso en el polvo / $c William
> > As I understand it, we are to create two name-title entries—for example:
> > 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust.
> > 700:12: Faulkner, William, $d 1897-1962. $t Intruder in the dust. $l
> Why would we need the 1st 700:12 example above when it serves the
> same purpose (i.e. to the patron) as the 100 + 245 $a? Do we really
> need that kind of redundancy, or is it some blue sky absolute
> perfection concept that RDA designers thought would have to be done
> for the sake of the profession?
> John G. Marr
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just consider what goes
> on in between. **
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.