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 >