Though OCLC does not enforce its policies, I think that, on the principle of the thing, substituting 700 $t for 240 in this way is a "local" practice which should not be introduced into master records. Though it is impossible to be truly consistent in such a large database, we should strive to all follow the same rules. Changing LC records can be especially confusing, because catalogers look to them for examples of "how LC does it."
A more efficient way to de-emphasize the 240 is through catalog displays. In Duke's Endeca catalog, the 240 does not appear on initial displays, only in a "details" tab. This was not an initiative by the cataloging department. In fact, I'm not sure what forces went into the decision, but IMHO it was a good one.
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 9:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
> Working with OCLC master 880929839 (LCCN 2014020850, title Beast
> feast), I have edited it to replace field 240 with field 700.
1. I await a thread or threads to pop up on OCLC-CAT asking why the 240 appears in the 700 $t. Or put another way, should OCLC master records be toyed with in this manner? Better off keeping this to the local catalog?
2. 700 with 2nd indicator "2" and, optionally I guess, a "Container of ..." designator.
Mark K. Ehlert O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata University of St. Thomas
Librarian 2115 Summit Avenue
Phone: 651-962-5488 St. Paul, MN 55105
"Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of Verona," Act I, Scene iii