I agree Kevin and have been thinking this the direction we should go for some time now. I do see the use of the 240 disappearing because currently it cannot be controlled in bibliographic records and thus, unusable in a Linked Data environment.

Guy Frost
Associate Professor of Library Science
Catalog Librarian
Odum Library/Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150
[log in to unmask]
FDLP 0125

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 11:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240

Interesting suggestion, Ian.  I think I would rather go much further and just have the MARC record be a description of the manifestation, without any "main entry" at the top, something like this:


245 0? Title transcribed from resource

700 1# AAP for 1st author, $e author

700 1# AAP for 2nd author, $e author

700 1# AAP for editor, $e editor

700 12 AAP for author. $t Preferred title for work, qualified by data specific to the expression


(I'm still not convinced that a separate AAP for the work alone is necessary.)


But if our bib and authority infrastructure (and the systems using it) were more robust, I would say that the first three 700 fields above would be unnecessary, because they would be in an authority record for the work/expression.  All that's needed to tie the manifestation to the work/expression is the AAP for the expression.  (And an even *more* robust system would require just the expression identifier in the 700 field.)


These discussions are really highlighting the fact that, while it is possible to shoehorn RDA data into MARC records, RDA is really intended for a very different environment.


Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Library

[log in to unmask]

(847) 491-2939


Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 8:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240


PCCLIST readers,


Thanks again to those who've contributed to this discussion.  The most recent post is Robert Maxwell's.  His book, Maxwell's Handbook for RDA, contains the phrase "format agnostic" (page viii), about which I asked a while ago (post to RDA-L, June 2, 2014).  The phrase is germane to the discussion, which I'd like to refocus back onto the use of MARC encoding, and in more general terms rather than specifically as to whether "Works. Selections" represents a work or expression, with or without various qualifiers.  My concern applies also to cases like "Poems. Selections" and "Preferred title. Language into which it is translated".  Setting such concerns aside for the moment (if possible!) and generalizing, I wonder whether:


100  AAP for author, |e author.

240  Preferred title for work, qualified by data specific to the expression

245  Title proper (as transcribed from preferred source).


is a practice that should be replaced by:


100  AAP for author, |e author.

245  Title transcribed from preferred source.

700 1_ AAP for author. |t Preferred title for work. 

700 12  AAP for author. |t Preferred title for work, qualified by data specific to the expression. 


Responding to Ted Gemberling's earlier question "Why would that be better than using the 240?":


If you concatenate the data in 100/240 as presented above, you get

AAP, author.  Preferred title for work

The relationship designator is obviously out of place in a field that represents the work or expression.  And the data is performing double duty, in these respects:

1. Field 100 is an access point qualified by the relationship term in subfield e, as well as a linking term for the preferred title;

2. Field 240 is a preferred title for work, however, it is also serving as preferred title for an expression of that work.  Particularly if a language into which the work has been translated is given.


Although use of MARC 700 duplicates the AAP for author data, it avoids having the 100 and 240 fields do double duty.  Despite the duplication, perhaps our records would be better if each field has just one function.


If I'm mistaken I'd appreciate correction.  In practical terms: is there any reason why not to prepare MARC records according to the second way?  (In OCLC Connexion, it has the added advantage that 700 fields with subfield t can be controlled, whereas field 240 cannot.)


Sincerely - Ian


P.S. Recording for reference purposes: Applicable guidelines are

100: RDA 9.19 & I.1, plus LC-PCC PS link to the document PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records

240: RDA 5.5

245: RDA 2.3.2


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]