Kevin, thanks a lot for the info. Your answer makes sense, however, unfortunately, our system doesn't function well in the linking fields it supposes to. Meanwhile, I am quite tired with coding RDA with MARC. RDA would work much better without MARC.
Which field you use depends on the function that you want to perform. If you want catalog users to be able to find the current edition by searching on the AAP of the previous edition, then put the AAP of the previous edition in a 700 field. If you want to generate a note and/or link directly to the previous edition (if your system is capable of performing such a link), then use a 775 linking field. (It could be argued what is the "most correct" linking field tag to use here; a case could be made for 780 or 787 instead of 775.)
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Yan Liao
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Other edition as new work using 700 or 775
We are cataloging one book, 4th edition. The original author has passed away. There is a different author in the 100 field. To link the current edition, based on RDA, a new work, with the previous editions, is it better to use 700 with |t or 775. LCís PPT example used 700 http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_revised_editions.ppt. While checking the definition of 775, seems it can also be used http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/7xx/775.html
Which one is better or there is actually no difference? (I donít see any difference in the indexing part. But potential record display might be different.)