> 6) added and controlled 70012 Gruzinski, Serge. ǂt Aigle et le dragon. ǂl English.
Why this one? Second indicator "2" is for an analytical entry. Are you suggesting that the English translation somehow "contains" the original French version?
Whether meeting the precise letter of WEMI or not, I must confess that in my eyes there are two too many access points for "Aigle et le dragon" in this PCC level OCLC master record for my taste.
Stephen T. Early
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL 60637
[log in to unmask]
CRL website: www.crl.edu
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240
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
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University
[log in to unmask]