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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~