How do you understand the advantage of using two 700’s the way you describe?


Actually, there’s so little difference between the two 700’s that in some ways it seems it would be better to use just the more specific one, since this will be an Expression record rather than a Work record. The way the second 700 is formulated implies its relation to the work. It’s the same except for the date.


Let’s say we used just the more specific 700, with the Expression date. Why would that be better than using the 240?


Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library


From: Ian Fairclough [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 6:53 AM
To: PCCLIST ([log in to unmask])
Cc: Ian Fairclough gmail ([log in to unmask]); Christopher Thomas; Ted P Gemberling; Ian Fairclough
Subject: RE: use of field 240


Dear PCCLIST readers,


Thanks to Christopher Thomas and Ted Gemberling for their contributions.  My question concerns MARC coding.  The pertinent RDA instruction is 6.27.1, for which LC-PCC PS has: For additional guidelines on presentation and punctuation of access points, see Policy Statement 1.7.1.  In LC-PCC PS, under  Access Points in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records (General), which appears to deal primarily with punctuation, field 240 is specifically mentioned, and two examples are given.  But I wonder if, instead of field 240, field 700 can (and should) be used.


Thus, instead of


100  AAP

240   Works.  $k Selections

245   Title on preferred source


the following 


100 AAP

245  Title on preferred source

700 1_  AAP.  $t Works. $t Selections

700 12 AAP.  $t Works.  $t Selections. $f Year


The case which prompts my inquiry is OCLC 830367645, LCCN 2013930951:

1001  Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758, ǂe author.

24010 Works. ǂk Selections

24510 Jonathan Edwards : ǂb writings from the Great Awakening / ǂc Philip F. Gura, editor.


This record is still in process in LC's catalog.  Our local catalog (and LC's) lacks field 240, but one of the numerous agencies that have edited the OCLC master has added it.  Why not have instead:


7001   Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections

70012 Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections. ǂf 2013.


Sincerely - Ian


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]