LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  May 2014

PCCLIST May 2014

Subject:

Re: redundant field 240?

From:

John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 12 May 2014 20:33:40 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

There is also a link in LC-PCC PS for I.1.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 15:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] redundant field 240?
>
> Ryan,
>
> From the PCC home page:
>
> Under RDA and PCC: click RDA Guidelines and Standards. Then the link to it is
> labeled Relationship designators in bibliographic records under the section
> PCC RDA Bibliographic Description. I agree that finding this is not necessarily
> that easy.
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2014, Finnerty, Ryan wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:01:27 +0000
> > From: "Finnerty, Ryan" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: redundant field 240?
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I?m right there with you on ?Contains ?? vs. ?Container of ?? but I
> > think we still need to include the relationship designator even if the
> > MARC coding conveys the relationship. See guideline 14 at
> > http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-
> Guid
> > elines.docx
> >
> > Interestingly, I can only find this document through a Google search and
> not as a link on the PCC website (unless it?s off in a corner somewhere I
> didn?t see). This document is still valid, yes?
> >
> > Ryan J. Finnerty
> > Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator UC San
> > Diego Library | Metadata Services
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | (858) 822-3138
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:58 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] redundant field 240?
> >
> > ?contains (expression)? was found, until April 2014, in Appendix J.3.4 as a
> relationship designator for a whole-part expresssion relationship.
> Unfortunately (in my opinion), this designator was changed last month to
> ?container of (expression)?. And since it was added as a fast-track change
> there isn?t even any history showing what it used to be.
> >
> > Pre-2014:
> >
> > 70002 $i Contains (expression): Zare?a Ya?eqob, ?c Negus of Ethiopia,
> > ?d approximately 1399-1468. ?t Homily on the rite of baptism and
> > religious instruction. ?l English ?s (Getatchew Haile)
> >
> > Post-2014:
> >
> > 70002 $i Containter of (expression): Zare?a Ya?eqob, ?c Negus of
> > Ethiopia, ?d approximately 1399-1468. ?t Homily on the rite of baptism
> > and religious instruction. ?l English ?s (Getatchew Haile)
> >
> > ?Contains ?? I understand. ?Container of ?? makes no sense at all to me in
> this context. And if it doesn?t make any sense to a librarian steeped in RDA,
> can we expect any library user to understand what relationship the
> designator is supposed to convey?
> >
> > So much as I hate to say it (I am as you all probably know a big
> > promoter of relationship designators) I probably won?t be using that
> > one in bibliographic records but will be relying on the ?_2? coding in
> > the 7XX field to convey the relationship. However, there is
> > unfortunately no choice if anybody wants to bring out this
> > relationship in an authority record so I guess I?ll have to grit my
> > teeth and use it there. (This isn?t the only 2014 change in the
> > relationship designators that seems bizarre to me.)
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Robert L. Maxwell
> > Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
> > 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: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:59 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: redundant field 240?
> >
> > Thanks to whoever at BYU has quickly restored the 700 fields that Charles
> Croissant said were missing from OCLC 853452562 (and removed the 240).
> Further questions remain as to (1) whether subfield i was omitted from
> these fields as an option decision or as a matter of policy, and (2) where the
> phrase "contains (expression)" is documented.
> >
> > A word of caution. It's easy, when working with this record, to overlook
> that it describes a two-volume set. If like me you have only one volume in
> hand, you might wind up deleting fields that should remain in the master
> record. And if you then replace the master record, you'll degrade the quality
> of the cataloging. Anyone wishing to describe just volume 1 can use OCLC
> 9789042927520; for volume 2, 853444030 is available. Both can use a little
> further work.
> >
> > Sincerely - Ian
> > Ian Fairclough
> > George Mason University
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager