We certainly welcome LC expertise but I should think the correct procedure in this case would have been then to correct the title of the work in the authority and bib records rather than delete the authority records remove the access points. In this particular case, however, examination of the 040 seems to show that LC does not appear done what you describe below. DLC does appear in 040, but before the access points in question were added to the record.

OCLC policy does not allow two separate master records (with the same cataloging language) for the same title so “another record” cannot exist next to an LC record in the OCLC database. At least not in theory ☺


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
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 Still Thinking
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 7:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: redundant field 240?

LC catalogers routinely correct/change copy catalog if the cataloger considers errors to be "egregious." In this case, the work was forwarded to a subject cataloger experienced in unusual languages such as Ethiopic, Syriac, Georgian, etc. for determining, if possible, the original Ethiopic/Geʻez title of the work which thereby meant deleting the English-language uniform title created by the outside library (which one assumes lacked such a specialist).  How the 240 got there is beyond me, but perhaps just due to AACR2 vs. RDA confusion on the part of the subject cataloger once s/he determined the original title of the work and decided how to handle the work-in-hand.  An NAR should have been created (or the outside library's NAR should have been modified) to reflect this, it seems to me, but am not LC today, so can not determine what, if anything, was done.

This brings up the problem of "bumping" outside libraries' cataloging by LC staff--some LC catalogers will code such a changed record 7/minimal level or change the outside record to DLC $c DLC  so it does not bump the outside library's records;  most though do not--as was apparently done in this case.

I assume Brigham Young or other libraries could change the record back to what it wants and then code it 7/minimal level so that another record exists next to LC's record in OCLC. I would also assume, though, that the original title of the work would be preferred.

  Sam Andrusko (retired LC cataloger, speaking only for himself)

Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:03:52 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] redundant field 240?
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Someone has modified OCLC 853452562 since I did some editing on it, in November of 2013 -- my copy of this record still contains the very nice access points for the expressions which were created by Brigham Young library, see NARs no2013085720 and no2013085718. The OCLC master record no longer contains these access points. It concerns me that someone would remove these access points from the master record -- that should not happen.