Why should the cataloger have used the 240 at all in the case below? I don't see a uniform title, only a variant title, which should have been recorded in a 246, not a 700 author title added entry.
And I really don't recall seeing an explanation of how omitting a 240 will help the reader.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240
Dear PCCLIST readers,
Thanks to Amy for her full explanation.
OCLC 875240162, also at my desk, has:
1001 Feeley, Dianne, ǂe author.
24510Leon Trotsky and the organizational principles of the revolutionary party / ǂc Dianne Feeley, Paul Le Blanc and Thomas Twiss.
What you don't see in the OCLC master is that, in the version as used for our acquisitions purposes, this field was present:
700 1 Feeley, Dianne. ‡t Leon Trotsky & the organizational principles of the Revolutionary Party.
I wonder why (1) the cataloger didn't use field 240 in this instance, and (2) why someone saw fit to remove the field. (Granted that the title with the ampersand rather than the spelled-out word doesn't achieve a whole lot.) This was not Library of Congress cataloging.
But I don't need any more answers. Again, thanks to all who've contributed. Feel free to continue discussing, anyone who's so inclined.
Sincerely - Ian
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University
[log in to unmask]