Ian or others,
Would you clarify one thing: how would a 100 without a 240 "be controlled to a name-title authority record"? Do you mean just that the 100 and the 245 $a contain the same characters as are in the authority record? What does "be controlled" mean in that context?
Actually, I'm not sure how a 100 with a 240 are "controlled," either, since I don't think OCLC's control command will cause the 240 to be underlined. But maybe you're not talking about a software operation.
UAB Lister Hill Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 8:00 PM
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
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University
[log in to unmask]