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.

I will be glad to restore these access points to the master record, unless someone at Brigham Young would prefer to do so. And yes, I would agree that the 240 in this record is not needed, since it has 700's for both of the expressions it contains.

Charles Croissant
Senior Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

PCCLIST readers,


In hand is a book for which a bib record (coded 040e rda) has these MARC fields:


240  ǂk Selections

700 ǂt ǂk Selections.

700 ǂt ǂk Selections. ǂl English.


But now, with two 700 fields (one for the work, one for the expression), I wonder whether the 240 is necessary or required.  In AACR2 cataloging, it would have had ǂk Selections.


In case someone wants details, the record is OCLC 853452562.  Unless I hear to the contrary, I'll delete field 240. 


Sincerely - Ian P.S. the record isn't coded pcc (but looks like it woulda/coulda/shoulda been)


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]