The comments in the description of item N-24a in the spreadsheet prepared by the Task Group on RDA Decisions Needed brings to mind something that I've been meaning to mention for a while.  The implication of the Task Group's comments appears to be that when $w/0=r the text found in subfield $i is copied literally into a display.  That's not actually the case.

I think that it's best to start by remembering that 5XX fields are "see also FROM tracings" (emphasis added).  This means that when building a display we start at the 5XX field and end up at the 1XX field.  A bit of text (often called the "reference instruction phrase"—the RIP) inserted between the 5XX field and the 1XX field describes what's going on.  In 5XX fields, in the absence of any other indication the RIP is typically given as something along the lines of "search also under".

                5XX field

                                Search also under:

                                                1XX field

A system can replace the default RIP with something else, depending on codes and other information contained in the 5XX field. Subfield $w plays an important part here: byte 0 can describe the relationship between the 5XX and the 1XX in more detail.  For example:

                $w/0=a: the 5XX field contains the name of a preceding entity

                $w/0=b: the 5XX field contains the name of a succeeding entity

It's really important to note that these (and similar) codes in $w/0 identify the nature of the thing contained in the 5XX field; but when constructing a display that starts from the 5XX field, the sense of the code is reversed in the RIP.  In a sense, 5XX fields must be viewed upside down. (4XX fields work in exactly the same upside down way.)

                If $w/0=a (5XX contains an earlier entity) then we have:

                5XX field

                                Search also under the later name:

                                                1XX field

                If $w/0=b (5XX contains a later entity) then we have:

                5XX field

                                Search also under the earlier name:

                                                1XX field

Although it's not much used in its original manner, 5XX subfield $i was defined to contain the full reference instruction phrase when the relationship between 5XX and 1XX was not one that could be described by one of the available codes. When subfield $i is present, $w/0 contains code "i"; the text in subfield $i is presented in the 5XX-to-1XX display exactly as given:

                If we have this:

                                100 $a Clemens, Samuel, $d 1835-1910

                                500 $w I $i See also his real identity $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910

                Then we generate this:

                                Twain, Mark, 1835-1910

                                                See also his real identity:

                                                                Clemens, Samuel, 1835-1910

When RDA came along, we needed a way to do something similar (provide for RIPs beyond those available with the few $w/0 codes). Because (for whatever reason) we wanted to use what has come to be called a "relationship designator" in subfield $i (or a relationship code in subfield $4; but I'll mostly skip discussion of $4) rather than a literal RIP, code "r" was added to $w/0.  When $w/0=r, then the default RIP is suppressed and (according to the MARC21 documentation at http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adtracing.html) "the content of subfield $i or $4 should be used to generate the reference instruction phrase that is used in a cross reference display". The MARC21 documentation differentiates very clearly between using the content of subfield $i or $4 to generate RIP text when $w/0=r, and using the contents of $i literally as the RIP when $w/0=i.  Contrast the preceding example (using $w/0=i) to this example (using $w/0=r):

                If we have this:

                                100 $a Clemens, Samuel, $d 1835-1910

                                500 $w r $i alternate identify $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910

                Then we generate something like this:

                                Twain, Mark, 1835-1910

                                                See also his real identity:

                                                                Clemens, Samuel, 1835-1910

Here are some examples from existing RDA authority records:

                If we have this:

                                100 $a Morrison, Jarrett $q (Jarrett Stephen), $d 1973-

                                510 $w r $i Founder of: $a Bowler Press

                Then we generate something like this:

                                Bowler Press

                                                Founded by: [or perhaps Search also under the founder:]

                                                                Morrison, Jarrett (Jarrett Stephen), 1973-

                If we have this:

                                110 $a Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Railway

                                510 $w r $i Successor: $a Salt Lake & Ogden Railway

                Then we generate something like this:

                                Salt Lake & Ogden Railway

                                                Predecessor:

                                                                Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Railway

To summarize: When $w=r, the sense of the text in subfield $i must be reversed (in the same way that the sense of $w/0 codes a and b must be reversed) when a system generates the RIP.  This leads me (finally!) to my main point.  N-24a misses the mark, because *all* of the texts in $i when $w/0=r must, when used to generate a display, be replaced with other text. This means that the presence or absence of "(work)" or any other particular piece of text in $i is utterly irrelevant: we can design our systems to provide whatever display equivalents for the $i text seem appropriate to us.

                If we have this:

                                100 $a Grey, Zane, $d 1872-1939. $t Desert heritage

                                500 $w r $i Abridgement of (work): $a Grey, Zane, $d 1873-1939. $t Heritage of the desert

                Then we can generate something like this:

                                Grey, Zane, 1873-1939. Heritage of the desert

                                                Abridged as:

                                                                Grey, Zane, 1873-1939. Desert heritage

                If we have this:

                                130 $a Devil's brother (Motion picture)

                                500 $w r $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Auber, D. F. E. $q (Daniel Francois Esprit), $d 1782-1871. Fra Diavolo

                Then we can generate something like this:

                                Auber, D. F. E. (Daniel Francois Esprit), 1783-1871. Fra Diavolo

                                                Adapted as the motion picture:

                                                                Devil's brother (Motion picture)

As far as I can tell, the real problem to be dealt with in the use of $i is that when $w/0=r a system must know in advance what to expect in $i, because the system must be able to reverse the sense of $i in order to generate the display.  This means that subfield $i cannot be just whatever seems to work best at the moment (pace RDA 29.5.1.3, etc.), but must come from a list whose contents are the result of a collaboration between cataloger types (excuse me! I meant "metadata creators") and system types.

This is a friendly reminder to the PCC membership of the October 21 deadline (this Friday) for your comments on the three PCC RDA Task Group reports, which are posted on the PCC web site.

·        The Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories -- http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/RDA-Acceptable-TG.html

·        The Task Group on Hybrid Bibliographic Records -- http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/RDA-Hybrid-bib-TG.html

·        The Task Group on RDA Decisions Needed – the Introduction (MS Word) and Spreadsheet (MS Excel) linked from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/RDA-PCC.html

Please share your thoughts over PCCLIST, or write to [log in to unmask].  Your input is much appreciated.