 |
 |
Hi Bob, I’m right there with you on “Contains …” vs. “Container of …” but I think we still need to include the relationship designator even if the MARC coding conveys the relationship. See guideline 14 at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx Interestingly, I can only find this document through a Google search and not as a link on the PCC website (unless it’s off in a corner somewhere I didn’t see). This document is still valid, yes? Ryan J. Finnerty Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | (858) 822-3138 From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:58 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] redundant field 240? “contains (expression)” was found, until April 2014, in Appendix J.3.4 as a relationship designator for a whole-part expresssion relationship. Unfortunately (in my opinion), this designator was changed last month to “container of (expression)”. And since it was added as a fast-track change there isn’t even any history showing what it used to be. Pre-2014: 70002 $i Contains (expression): Zareʼa Yaʻeqob, ǂc Negus of Ethiopia, ǂd approximately 1399-1468. ǂt Homily on the rite of baptism and religious instruction. ǂl English ǂs (Getatchew Haile) Post-2014: 70002 $i Containter of (expression): Zareʼa Yaʻeqob, ǂc Negus of Ethiopia, ǂd approximately 1399-1468. ǂt Homily on the rite of baptism and religious instruction. ǂl English ǂs (Getatchew Haile) “Contains …” I understand. “Container of …” makes no sense at all to me in this context. And if it doesn’t make any sense to a librarian steeped in RDA, can we expect any library user to understand what relationship the designator is supposed to convey? So much as I hate to say it (I am as you all probably know a big promoter of relationship designators) I probably won’t be using that one in bibliographic records but will be relying on the “_2” coding in the 7XX field to convey the relationship. However, there is unfortunately no choice if anybody wants to bring out this relationship in an authority record so I guess I’ll have to grit my teeth and use it there. (This isn’t the only 2014 change in the relationship designators that seems bizarre to me.) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "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 Ian Fairclough Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:59 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: redundant field 240? Thanks to whoever at BYU has quickly restored the 700 fields that Charles Croissant said were missing from OCLC 853452562 (and removed the 240). Further questions remain as to (1) whether subfield i was omitted from these fields as an option decision or as a matter of policy, and (2) where the phrase "contains (expression)" is documented. A word of caution. It's easy, when working with this record, to overlook that it describes a two-volume set. If like me you have only one volume in hand, you might wind up deleting fields that should remain in the master record. And if you then replace the master record, you'll degrade the quality of the cataloging. Anyone wishing to describe just volume 1 can use OCLC 9789042927520; for volume 2, 853444030 is available. Both can use a little further work. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough George Mason University [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>