Roy Tennant questioned the utlility of:

>- title page title
>- cover title
>- title from jewel case insert

The absence of such information can result in duplicate records for
the same resource, or the assumption that the same resource was issued
under different titles.  

I approve of the new MARC field 588 for source, since the information
is of more utility for the cataloguer than the end user, and need not
be an early note.  I think 588 should be used for all source of title
notes, not just those from outside the resource.

The division of similar information is a flaw in MARC, e.g.: 506 and
540 should be adjacent or two subfields of the same field; noncast
credits for video recordings of motion pictures should be together in
508, not divided, with some in 245/$c; physical information should not
be as widely divided as 300 and 538; and now source of title should
not be divided between 500 and 588.  

I hope any new coding system will have like with like, a basic
principle of classification which should be extended to coding.

Please don't tell me display need not reflect coding.  Why create the
additional work for ourselves of changing element order?

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________