When we concentrate on the issue of uniform titles/AAPs for translations, we forgot about those which bring together manifestations that use different titles in the same language for the same work.  An easy example is Huckleberry Finn—authority record n79132705 gives four 400’s that use different permutations of the title.  The authority for “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” gives four variants.  The one for Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” gives eight.  Why would it be desirable not to collocate the various manifestations of these works using work AAPs?


Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240


The views expressed here are my own and I do not speak officially for the Library of Congress.


I wholeheartedly agree about finding UTs interesting.  But more importantly, I DO think they can in many instances be very helpful -- which is of course our raison d'etre.


Not to dispute the use survey done at Duke (a long time ago, I might point out), nor to make light of the question posed about what catalog users might or might not be looking for, but ...


I think, per se, the question is phrased too narrowly.

Voina i mir is, to some of us, well known as War and Peace; and so, yes, what English-speaking user would look for the Russian titleBut what about those who don’t know that?  Are they to guess at what the title might be – in English, German, Swahili, Estonian, or whatever?  (and further, how often -- or not -- is the translated title a literal translation that could easily be guessed at blindly?).  And what about the researcher who specifically is researching works in translation, and doesn’t know in advance what the title is – i.e., in his or her world.  One thing I do agree with: that for translations, Uniform Titles are among the most useful and understood – I would even say ‘indispensable’ (I also find conventional collective UTs extremely useful, but I won’t go there because I know that is a ‘third rail’ for many – and I won’t even get into the ‘preferred title at the first instance’ question).  Isn’t a UT, fundamentally, a specific kind of “Authority Control”?  I would hope none would suggest dispensing with Authority Control.  We need to know what we call Samuel Clemens or Muammar Qaddafi (just one of about 60 forms on his NAR, and no thank you, I don’t want to look under all of them).  We also need to know what to call a specific work.


The collocation function always has been an important goal of cataloging.  And despite the miracles of Google, the power of ubiquitous keyword searching, and whatever other latest tricks the IT systems may provide, I don’t see that changing.  I’m relieved that the respondents to the user survey saw it as beneficial – I’d be shocked to learn otherwise.   But I’m baffled by their bafflement about the use of UTs to arrange editions – isn’t that just a way to move a level deeper in the collocation function?  Collocation is what UTs do so well – they gather resources together that deserve to be gathered together.  No, most institutions don’t worry about “cards in a drawer” any more, thank goodness.  But does that make the principle of collocation any less valuable?


I often sense in these threads on 240s and UTs and conventional collective titles, a sense that those conventions are ‘getting in the way’ of people finding stuff.  Nobody is not talking about not recording the title as the title.  UTs, etc., should be seen as an additional tool – another point of access – in people finding stuff.


As a cataloging instructor, believe me, I get the idea that UTs can be hard to teach and for people to grasp and to apply effectively.  So maybe learning them is ‘getting in the way’ of our utilizing them effectively.  But that is a reflection on our training effectiveness – not on whether it is something worth learning and using.  And it doesn’t mean their usefulness should be discarded. [insert here baby/bathwater analogy]



Timothy J. Carlton

Senior Instructor

Cooperative and Instructional Programs (COIN)

Library of Congress


[log in to unmask]





-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240


Amy Turner wrote:

"What English-speaking catalog user is looking for Tolstoy's Voĭna i mir?"


It seems like it depends on how you conceive the "library world." Certainly in public libraries the uniform title seems superfluous. But in research libraries it makes more sense because there are people who are actually reading the book in the original Russian. However, even in those research libraries it might not make sense for Voĭna i mir to be very prominent in the cataloging record. Maybe burying it down in the 700's is adequate.


The reason I mentioned the "library world" is that maybe it makes a difference whether you consider the knowledge that libraries provide as a cooperative thing, where all libraries that follow a certain standard like RDA are pointing to that highest level of knowledge that a user can "ascend" to if she wants to put in the effort. In that highest level, the user knows that War and Peace is a translation of Voĭna i mir. Authority records are created so that a person who doesn’t know Russian can find the work by the title she knows. By creating the authority records you are creating a kind of link between the knowledge available in a rural public library and the Library of Congress.


I remember that AACR2 had different "levels of description," where catalogers could choose to provide less detail if that met their library's needs. Is that true in RDA, too?


One more point: I personally find uniform titles interesting. They make cataloging a more interesting job. They are one of the things that make cataloging more than typing.


Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library


-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 6:09 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240


I'd like to address the issue of how omitting a 240 could help the reader, but I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating a revision of MARC.  I agree with Gary Strawn that our efforts are better focused elsewhere.  Instead, I would like for uniform titles (to use the old terminology) to be optional, as they were under AACR2.


In the 80s, cataloging staff at Duke did a catalog use survey.  We asked users what they expected from the catalog in terms of detail of description and collocation.  Users were very positive about the usefulness of collocating all the works of an author.  I forget exactly what term we used for collocation, but they really appreciated that this was an important function of the catalog.  However, when we moved on to the question of arranging different editions by means of uniform titles, they were completely baffled. I have also seen a lot of confusion when training catalogers to use uniform titles.  Discussions on this list further illustrate lack of clarity about what uniform titles accomplish and how. 


Perhaps the most useful and easily understood uniform titles are those for translations, but what English-speaking catalog user is looking for Tolstoy's Voĭna i mir?


At Duke, over the years between the implementation of AACR2 and the implementation of RDA, we gradually used fewer and fewer uniform titles in original cataloging, while accepting them on copy.  Our catalog indexes 240s and 130s, but does not display them prominently.  I can't prove that this has resulted in a better catalog than if we had used more uniform titles and displayed them more prominently, but I don't know of a single request from the public to add a 240.  We do get requests to correct typos and forms of authors names, and to reclassify.


Then along comes RDA and the concept of authorized access points for works and expressions, throwing 240s into the limelight.  And though we are told to look forward to a future where authorized access points are not so bound up in character strings, we are also told to construct character strings that code the complexities of a works and expressions in ways that the average reader would never anticipate.  Maybe it will all work better in the post-MARC environment.   In the interim, I think that we can serve the reader by making 240's optional, and by focusing our attention on other authority control, and on subject analysis and classification.


-----Original Message-, ----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kroychik, Alla

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:05 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240



Agreed with Michael.




-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:00 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240




Why should the cataloger have used the 240 at all in the case below?  I don't see a uniform title, only a variant title, which should have been recorded in a 246, not a 700 author title added entry.


And I really don't recall seeing an explanation of how omitting a 240 will help the reader.




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]



-----Original Message-----

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:46 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] use of field 240


Dear PCCLIST readers,


Thanks to Amy for her full explanation.


OCLC 875240162, also at my desk, has:


1001 Feeley, Dianne, ǂe author.

24510Leon Trotsky and the organizational principles of the revolutionary party / ǂc Dianne Feeley, Paul Le Blanc and Thomas Twiss.


What you don't see in the OCLC master is that, in the version as used for our acquisitions purposes, this field was present:


700 1  Feeley, Dianne. ‡t Leon Trotsky & the organizational principles of the Revolutionary Party.


I wonder why (1) the cataloger didn't use field 240 in this instance, and (2) why someone saw fit to remove the field.  (Granted that the title with the ampersand rather than the spelled-out word doesn't achieve a whole lot.)    This was not Library of Congress cataloging.


But I don't need any more answers.  Again, thanks to all who've contributed.  Feel free to continue discussing, anyone who's so inclined.


Sincerely - Ian


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian George Mason University


[log in to unmask]