There's a difference between the "double duty" of a 440 text being asked to
represent both a transcribed and an controlled form of series title (or a
245 being asked to represent both a transcribed and a controlled form of
title) and that of a hierarchically structured data string being asked to
be indicative of all levels of the hierarchy.  The former problem rears its
head when the two implicit expectations for the content of the field come
into conflict; but that doesn't arise in the case of hierarchical access
points, or at least, not in principle.  That raises two questions for Ian's

Are there any cases where an RDA expression AAP does not contain the full
RDA work AAP, assuming the two AAPs differ?

Is it reasonable to expect that systems will provide all the functionality
one would like from a hierarchical string? e.g., that the appearance of an
expression AAP in a bib record will entail the inclusion of 4XXs from the
implicit work AAP in one's index?

If the latter expectation proves false, then Ian's notion that each level
of a hierarchy might need separate representation is worth considering.


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear PCCLIST readers,
> Stephen Hearn wrote: "Returning to the question of doing double duty--when
> a 240 is present, the 1XX is both the lead term for a name/title authorized
> access point and the creator entry for the resource named in the 245. Does
> the prohibition on using relator tems or codes after a name in work or
> expression AAPs apply to 1XXs followed by both 240 and 245?"
> This point lay behind the example I gave, which was
> 70012Lee, Laurie, ǂe artist, ǂe author. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections.
> in response to which Manon Théroux  kindly directed us to "PCC Guidelines
> for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records"
> (available via LC-PCC PS for I.1, but not seen here
> in which is stated that
> relationship designators  should not be used in that context.
> I should have said that the example I gave was intended to illustrate a
> possible practice that is not actually done, a "straw man" so to speak.
> Some readers, however, might have noticed, as Stephen did, the analogous
> situation with use of field 100 and a relator term in subfield e, followed
> by field 240.  In such cases, field 100 is doing double duty.   It was this
> analogy that the example was intended to provoke.
> To parse out such a situation, two fields might result if 700 fields were
> created by an automated process:
> AAP for the creator, plus a relationship designator
> AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the expression
> However, in order to avoid doublt duty the situation should really be
> three 700 fields:
> AAP for the creator, plus a relationship designator
> AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the work
> AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the expression
> In the example which provoked my earlier post (the book of drawings etc.
> by Lawrence ("Laurie")  Lee, with main entry under his daughter for her
> extensive contribution), field 240 is not available for use, because the
> 100 field is being used for a *different* person.  Therefore  field 700
> must be used instead.
> Avoiding having MARC fields do double duty is a practice that has been
> increasingly implemented over the past several years.  Field 440 did double
> duty, with the resulting problem (one of them) being that when the
> established form changed, for example by addition of a qualifier, a
> cataloger not fully conversant with the situation might simply add the
> qualifier in that field rather than changing it to a 490 and adding an 830
> field - now the only practice available in MARC.  The creation of field 264
> probably resulted in a collective sigh of relief:  it enabled separation of
> publication data from distribution and manufacturing data, and gave the
> copyright year a place of its very own.
>  In an earlier thread, with subject "Use of field 240", I gave a partial
> response to Pete Wilson's question "... why you want both a work AAP and an
> expression AAP in your bib record".  Here's more:
> (1) For instructional purposes.  Acting on the assumption that people want
> to know about the work, the expression, and the relationship between them,
> catalogers can point out that relationship  through how we do our job.
> Provision of separate fields, together with separate linked authority
> records documenting full information about both work and expression, can
> serve that purpose.
> (2) To promote linked data.  Linked data is already available to use via
> OCLC Connexion's controlled headings functionality.  Perhaps other users
> can give examples of similar technology elsewhere.
> (3) To use the MARC format in a way that will make it easier for those
> concerned with migration to a different format (whether BIBFRAME, or any
> other) to understand what is entailed.  (Would you want your programmer to
> come up with the equivalent of my "straw man" illustration as above?  I
> doubt it!)
> Sincerely - Ian
> Ian Fairclough
> Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
> George Mason University Libraries
> [log in to unmask]

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242