Another problem is the whole “other title information” question.


I’m working on an e-book where the bibliographic record looks like this:


130  0     East and South-East Asia (2013)

245  10  East and South-East Asia : ǂb international relations and security perspectives / ǂc editor: Andrew T.H. Tan.


I think that the cataloger followed the RDA guidelines as written in this case, but the so-called unique title is now a meaningless text string, certainly from the user perspective.  


I think that East and South-East Asia, international relations and security perspectives would be much better as a unique title than East and South-East Asia (2013).  At least a user would know what aspect of East and South-East Asia is being discussed in this resource and would do a much better job of identifying the resource and being able to select which one he or she wants.


Of course, this problem isn’t unique to RDA.  Many meaningless text strings were created under AACR2 in the guise of “uniform titles” that don’t help the user very much in terms of identification.


The problem has gotten worse under RDA, though, with the guideline about having all preferred titles unique if there isn’t another data element associated with the title as an authorized access point.


I would rather see us make better use of the data elements we have as part of the title, such as the “other title information”, in making a unique preferred title rather than adding non-title data elements that aren’t going to be useful in identification to anyone other than a cataloger who knows what the data element is and why it was added.








Eugene Dickerson

Team Leader for Cataloging

Ralph J. Bunche Library

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC

[log in to unmask]

(202) 647-2191 (voice)


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stanley Elswick - NOAA Federal
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752


Well, whether 245 $p and $n remain should not necessarily be based on whether or not OCLC makes use of it. After all, they could alter their search to accommodate it.


The real question is whether putting parts and numbers in separate subfields does anything useful, and whether that usefulness outweighs the complication of the 245. I am hard pressed at the moment to see much utility in the separate subfields. Someone may wish to point out how the separate subfields do some good.




On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

(apologies for cross posting)


What Kevin said:


For instance, in OCLC’s Connexion Client, for whatever odd reason, there is no browse search that fully accommodates 245 $a, $p, $n, and $b .

“Title phrase” browses 245 $a and $b only, completely ignoring the presence of any $p and $n in between $a and $b.

“Title whole phrase” browses $a, $p, and $n, but omits $b.


I agree that it may be time to bid farewell to 245 $p and $n.


Stephen T. Early


Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood

Chicago, IL  60637

773-955-4545 x326

[log in to unmask]

CRL website:



This email is UNCLASSIFIED.


From: Kevin M Randall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RDA-L] RE: NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752


I've wondered that for a long, long time!


However, I've recently been thinking that maybe subfields $n and $p should be abolished, and the entire title proper should be in subfield $a.  (After all, the entire title proper goes into subfield $t in the 760-787 linking fields, with no separate subfielding of numbers/names of parts.)  Is there any benefit to having the numbers/names of parts separately subfielded?  It seems to just cause more trouble, most especially when $n and $p are ignored in title displays (like in lots of online catalog indexes—including in OCLC!).


Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Library

[log in to unmask]

(847) 491-2939


Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!


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]


Stanley Elswick
NOAA Central Library
301.713.2607 x138

The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects only my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.