 |
 |
There is also a link in LC-PCC PS for I.1. ------------------------------------------ John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 [log in to unmask] +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 15:28 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] redundant field 240? > > Ryan, > > From the PCC home page: > > Under RDA and PCC: click RDA Guidelines and Standards. Then the link to it is > labeled Relationship designators in bibliographic records under the section > PCC RDA Bibliographic Description. I agree that finding this is not necessarily > that easy. > > Adam > > On Mon, 12 May 2014, Finnerty, Ryan wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:01:27 +0000 > > From: "Finnerty, Ryan" <[log in to unmask]> > > Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging > > <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: redundant field 240? > > > > 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- > Guid > > elines.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): Zare?a Ya?eqob, ?c Negus of Ethiopia, > > ?d approximately 1399-1468. ?t Homily on the rite of baptism and > > religious instruction. ?l English ?s (Getatchew Haile) > > > > Post-2014: > > > > 70002 $i Containter of (expression): Zare?a Ya?eqob, ?c Negus of > > Ethiopia, ?d approximately 1399-1468. ?t Homily on the rite of baptism > > and religious instruction. ?l English ?s (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]> > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Adam L. Schiff > Principal Cataloger > University of Washington Libraries > Box 352900 > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 > (206) 543-8409 > (206) 685-8782 fax > [log in to unmask] > http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~