I think the 100 (1xx) field is valuable for shelflisting (where is that thing on the shelf?); since I shelflist online, it’s helpful and efficient to see immediately what I’m shelflisting on: a consistent name access point, or on a “title main entry.”
With music expressions, the 245 title often is not helpful, because a work (or manifestation) can have so many different names. And a “controlled” access point can be clickable in an opac, to point one to other manifestations or related … things.
It does seem that use of “7xx  $a … $ t …” is handled better by ILS’s, as this field potentially connects more easily to AAP strings or to other access strings in a catalog (more easily than to the 100/240 combo). I certainly like the idea (for a multi-expression manifestation) of having these access points in the 7xx fields; it seems that current practice is also to use a “compilation” access in the 240 field.
Sorry to jump in a week after this died down. I’ve gotten behind in keeping up with PCCLIST. (Or perhaps it subsequently was revived under a different thread.)
Jill Shires, Music Cataloging Librarian
University of NC at Chapel Hill
PO Box 8890
Davis Library, CB #3914
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890
919/962-9709 (work), 933-4052 (home), 423-5078 (cell)
"As every cat owner knows, nobody owns a cat." >^..^<
Ellen Perry Berkeley
Robert says, “In my opinion we should consider abandoning the 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a method of recording the authorized access point for a work or expression and only use 7XX.” Yes, I think RDA is in fact leaning toward that, isn’t it? To follow its spirit maybe we should record the manifestation title in 245, skip the 1xx, and record creators only in direct association (7xx name/title fields) with works/expressions contained within the manifestation. Actually, though, I think for a single-work manifestation I have no problem representing the work/expression with a 100/240 combination, which would often mean a 240 that repeats the 245. That firmly associates a creator with a work/expression, not a manifestation as the 100/245 does, and does not seem to me a problem.
I agree with Stephen. To add to what he has said, I think this is analogous to the years of trouble we had with 490/440/8XX and after much experience finally understood that (to quote Stephen) the “different data elements [were] doing different jobs”: 490 gives the form of the series found in the manifestation; 8XX gives the authorized access point for the work (the series), to be used in indexing.
It seems strange to me that we have three different places to find the authorized access point for a work in a MARC bibliographic record: the combination of 1XX + 240; the combination of 1XX + 245 $a; or 7XX. To me this is the confusing situation, not the procedure where we include two access points in 7XX, one for each expression in the resource. In my opinion we should consider abandoning the 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a method of recording the authorized access point for a work or expression and only use 7XX. (That goes for 130, too—it makes even less sense to me than the 1XX/2XX procedure to use 130 in an RDA context to record the authorized access point for a work that is contained in the resource. RDA has no concept of title main entry, and 1XX in RDA is used to represent the principal creator. The work represented in 130 isn’t the creator of itself.)
On a practical level, experience teaching RDA has shown it is much easier to teach if you can simply say (following the current procedure): if there is only one work or expression represented in the resource, the authorized access point is recorded in 1XX/240 or 1XX/245$a. In all other cases (when there are two or more works or expressions represeted in the resource), authorized access points for the works and/or expressions are recorded in sets of 7XX fields. (And it would be even easier to teach if we could simply say that authorized access points for works and expressions are in all cases recorded in 7XX fields).
Another practical point (that I know will be dismissed by many, but anyway …) is that although we have this supposedly efficient shorthand of allowing a substitute of 1XX + 245$a (instead of 1XX + 240) if the title proper matches the preferred title used in the authorized access point for the work, most systems that I know of do not index this as a name-title (it’s hard enough to get systems to index 1XX + 240 as a name-title), so while theoretically we have identified the work by recording 1XX + 245$a, in many cases it is of little practical value when it comes to finding the work, at least if you want an alphabetical list that collocates all the works/expressions of an author in the database.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RDA confusion about creators in 100 field for multi-expression manifestations
Duplication does not necessarily mean redundancy. My left front tire may be a total duplicate of my right front tire, but neither one of them is redundant, because they're doing different jobs.
An authorized access point for the Work/Expression contained in a resource is often different in form from the resource's 1XX/245, and is always different in purpose. The fact that practice has elided the expression of resource title and uniform title in the 245 when they're the "same" was always an efficiency that came with a great cost--the sorry state of Work/Expression authorized access points in most of our catalogs. If we had recognized early on that these are different data elements doing different jobs even when they happen to look the same, we'd be in much better shape now.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I see I said “works” repeatedly in reference to the English and Spanish versions of the novel. I should of course have said “expressions.” Sorry about that. There are in fact two expressions. 6.27.3 is related to creating authorized access points for them. It would seem that at least one AAP must go in a 700 field, since we no longer use 240’s with multiple language qualifiers. But while I remember PCC training as saying that BOTH expressions go in 700 name/title entries, Kevin Randall and John Marr have disputed that approach. If the whole problem is that I’m remembering the training wrong, I’ll be happy to be told, but Kevin appeared to confirm implicitly that that was PCC’s stance.
I’m puzzled by it too, but I think in this case there is only one work, although in 2 expressions. As such, the authorized access point for the work is provided according to 220.127.116.11. It still doesn’t make sense to have an equivalent 700 field.
If there were actually 2 works, then the preferred title might be “Novels. Selections” (18.104.22.168.3).
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455