Print

Print


Then which of the following is correct for the work represented by 
pre-RDA NAR no2010116269? The title on the manifestation is in Chinese; 
it contains both the original Mongolian and a Chinese translation of the 
original.

This:

130 0_ Altan tobci.
245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci.
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.

or this:

130 0_ Altan tobci.
245 10 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.

or this:

245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
730 02 $i Container of (work): $t Altan tobci.
730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci. $l Chinese.


Thank you,
Mike


Michael A. Chopey
Catalog Librarian
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968



On 12/11/2015 5:46 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> I agree with Adam that using 1XX/240 if there is only one 
> work/expression and 7XX's if there are more than one is the PCC 
> practice, but I also agree with John that there are logical problems 
> with it. For example, continuing to use 130 seems very strange since 
> 130 represents the authorized access point for a work, not an entity 
> capable of creation, so there's no way that an entity represented by a 
> 130 can be considered the principal creator of the work--it *is* the 
> work. I also have advocated for some time making obsolete the peculiar 
> MARC practice of cutting an authorized access point for a work or 
> expression in two and recording part of it (the creator) in 1XX and 
> the other part (the title and other additions) in 240. This causes all 
> sorts of problems, not the least being it's difficult to control in 
> some systems (including OCLC, apparently). It would in my opinion be 
> better always to record work and expression authorized access points 
> in 7XX fields, rather than sometimes recording them in 1XX/240 (when 
> there is only one). I did that on my earliest RDA records during the 
> test period, before PCC practice solidified.
>
> However, the current PCC practice is as Adam describes and should (in 
> my opinion) be followed until it's changed. (A change I would welcome, 
> you will not be surprised to hear.)
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine 
> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. 
> Snow, 1842.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> 
> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 7:45:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda 
> authority records
> By this logic, what is the basis for recording anything in 1XX in the 
> MARC record?  A creator is recorded in relationship to a work, but 
> that relationship is already covered in the 7XX fields.  In the 
> idiosyncratic MARC scheme, 1XX represents the "main entry", a concept 
> that is allegedly dead in RDA.  If the resource contains only one work 
> or expression, we use the 1XX in combination with the 240 or 245 to 
> name the work.  If, when there is more than one work or expression, we 
> say we can't use 240 or 130, then there must be no preferred title for 
> the creator named in the 1XX to relate to.  In fact, the same logic 
> applies when there is only one work or expression.  We have always 
> conflated the manifestation with expression and work in the 245 and 
> this made sense in the world of card catalogs, but there's nothing in 
> RDA that calls for doing that.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
> Langdell Hall 194
> Harvard Law School Library
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] 
> on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 22:04
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating 
> new/improved rda authority records
>
> 240 (or 130 for works and expressions named by title alone) should 
> only be used when there is a single work or expression in the resource 
> being described.  If there are two or more, use 7XX analytic entries 
> instead (and precede them with $i Container of (expression)).
>
> Adam L. Schiff
>
> Principal Cataloger
>
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> Box 352900
>
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> (206) 543-8409
>
> (206) 685-8782 fax
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:15 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda 
> authority records
>
> Do others agree with Mark?  A 240 is an expression as well as a 7XX, 
> so why do can't we have a 240 and a 700 instead of two 7XXs?
>
> In practical sense, for those ILSs based on the unit card, the 240 
> will display (without the coding) at the top of the record and will be 
> recognizable to the patron.
>
> Gene
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ehlert, Mark K. 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On Dec 10, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Also if the unif. title is under an author, would there be 240
>     10 title. English and then a 700 10  Name. Title. Latin.
>     > Or are there two 7XXs instead??  This latter question has been
>     just discussed.  I thought when unif. titles were split, one was a
>     240, the other is a 7XX.
>
>     Two 7XXs.  Each language expression is only one part of the whole
>     resource.  Thus, AAPs for the parts are presented as a chain of
>     analytical added entries.
>
>     --
>     Mark K. Ehlert  O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
>     Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas
>       Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue
>     Phone: 651-962-5488 <tel:651-962-5488>           St. Paul, MN 55105
>     <http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>
>
>       "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
>     the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
>     Verona," Act I, Scene iii
>