Thank you for this response.
It’s true, of course, that “part 1” and “part 2” are part of the title, but I believe that subfields $a, $n, and $p are all part of the title proper. I was puzzled because at least three catalogers had worked with one or the other record, and none had inserted the subfield $n. From the two responses so far, it would seem as if I should do so.
As to Mac Elrod’s question, Twilight saga. Breaking dawn, part 1 and Twilight saga. Breaking dawn, part 2 are two different motion pictures. (I am cataloging two piano scores of the music from the films, and also wondered why the two scores were not treated as a set.)
I now have another question, however: should the preferred titles be as it is given on the authority records (Breaking dawn, part 1 and Breaking dawn, part 2), or as it appears on the citations in both records, i.e., Twilight saga. Breaking dawn, part 1 and Twilight saga. Breaking dawn, part 2. This will also affect preferred title for the scores.
I note the situation seems analogous to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the rings. For the books, this title was treated as a series. For the motion pictures, the whole phrase was regarded as the title, e.g., “The lord of the rings, the return of the king,” although the authority records for these titles also seem to be incorrectly subfielded in that they lack a subfield $p for the second part of the title.
Why do monographs catalogers so dislike subfield $p?
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herrold, Charles
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752
The second of these ARs is mine, and I accepted the precedent provided by no2011170134. I believe “part 1” and “part 2” are simply part of the title, so to speak.
Chuck Herrold
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752
My apologies for cross-posting. In both of these records, the part number (“part 1,” “part 2”) is not placed in subfield $n. Is there a reason for this that I should have known about?
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.� Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by anyone other than the intended individual or entity is prohibited without prior approval.� If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.
