Please, stop the madness!
Whatever arguments can be made for getting rid of the 240 can be made equally well for the 1XX field. Be that as it may, it seems to go completely against the spirit of PCC to implement such a policy unilaterally.
The NAR tells the user who is looking for the work "Clevidence, Cody-Rose, ǂd 1984- ǂt Beast feast" to look under the authorized access point for the work "Clevidence, Cody-Rose, ǂd 1984- ǂt Poems. ǂk Selections", but with the 240 gone, such a search will be directed to the 700 field, but it will also match the 100/245 combination. Seems kind of confusing. For the record, our catalog has always handled the 240 and other "uniform titles" fairly well, at least in its classic version.
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)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 21:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240
> Dear PCCLIST readers,
> This thread has had some interesting contributions, red herrings
> notwithstanding! I decided to go ahead and de-implement use of field 240
> with records that require my attention. Here's a case.
> Working with OCLC master 880929839 (LCCN 2014020850, title Beast feast), I
> have edited it to replace field 240 with field 700. To the best of my
> knowledge, the record in LC's catalog will remain as is, with field 240.
> Access points with the author's name now occur twice in the OCLC record,
> first as field 100 with subfield e author, second as field 700 with ǂt Poems. ǂk
> Selections. Both of these fields can be controlled to a name-title authority
> record. This NAR, which has only codes for DLC in field 040, is actually based
> on the work in hand.
> The problem of field 100 serving double duty is thereby resolved. If field
> 240 is not to be declared obsolete, then at least it doesn't have to be used
> any more.
> Or does it? Did I get this wrong? Is it incumbent upon me to change this bib
> record back? I'm about to embark on updating numerous records in the
> same way. So I'd appreciate hearing further from people.
> Sincerely - Ian
> Ian Fairclough
> Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University
> [log in to unmask]