So the record now has two identical access points for the expression? The 100/240 combo and the 710 analytic added entry?
That seems contrary to correct practice. Also, if 710 12 is included, PCC policy strongly encourages the relationship designator $i Container of (expression)
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Ian Fairclough wrote:
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:28:52 +0000
> From: Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: use of field 240
> PCCLIST readers,
> After weighing the options, I've come up with what some might regard as a compromise. I realize that others might have another opinion!
> Here is what I have done with OCLC 881560410, The eagle and the dragon. The record is coded pcc. A version is in LC's catalog; the codes for other agencies appear after DLC in the OCLC master.
> 1) added ǂe author to 100 (with punctuation, as prescribed elsewhere)
> 2) left field 240 as is
> 3) added field 500 "First published in French as L'aigle et le Dragon © Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2012"--Title-page verso.
> 4) added 7001 Birell, Jean, ǂe translator.
> 5) added 7001 ǂi Translation of: ǂa Gruzinski, Serge. ǂt Aigle et le dragon.
> 6) added and controlled 70012 Gruzinski, Serge. ǂt Aigle et le dragon. ǂl English.
> The above includes the fields that I believe ought to be included in an RDA record. They bring out the WEMI aspects. The record preserves field 240 for those who prefer or require it. As always with an OCLC master record, you can either make edits locally (such as deleting fields not required), or edit and replace the master.
> As I said yesterday, I don't need any answers, but do feel free to respond.
> Sincerely - Ian
> Ian Fairclough
> Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University
> [log in to unmask]
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]