Print

Print


Yuji,

If Adam is correct that the Mail carrier example in the PCC Relationship 
Designator Guidelines Task Group Report is erroneous and not 
prescriptive, then I think if you're following LC practice in LC-PCC PS 
6.27.3, your first 700 12 here should probably have relationship 
designator "Container of (work)," not "Container of (expression)."  I.e.:

> 100 0_ Tertullian, ...
> 245 10 Apology / by Tertullian; translated by....
> 700 12 Container of (work): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum.  (for Latin)
> 700 12 Container of (expression): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum. English.
>

I'm not saying that's a better approach FRBR-wise than in your first 
example here, but I'm at least convinced (for now?) that you should not 
use an expression-level relationship designator with a work-level AAP.

Mike


On 12/15/2015 9:02 AM, Yuji Tosaka wrote:
> Gene,
>
> As I read the explanation provided in Maxwell's handbook for RDA 
> (e.g., pages 598-600), if there is more than one expression of the 
> same work embodied in a manifestation, we only record "analytic" 
> access points for each in 7XX fields. Those access points also record 
> the relationship between an expression and a work, each consisting of 
> the authorized access point for the work realized by the expression, 
> followed by expression-related elements. As such, an access point for 
> the work is not explicitly recorded in 240 field, just as it is 
> formally not recorded for most resources when the title proper 
> recorded in 245 subfield $a is exactly the same as what could be 
> recorded in 240 field.
>
> From this long discussion thread, it therefore seems that 
> "Apologeticum" example could be recorded as follows:
>
> (1) RDA 6.27.3
>
> 100 0_ Tertullian, ...
> 245 10 Apology / by Tertullian; translated by....
> 700 12 Container of (expression): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum. Latin. 
> (plus other qualifiers needed)
> 700 12 Container of (expression): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum. English.
>
> (2) Following LC practice in LC-PCC PS 6.27.3
>
> 100 0_ Tertullian, ...
> 245 10 Apology / by Tertullian; translated by....
> 700 12 Container of (expression): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum. (for 
> Latin)
> 700 12 Container of (expression): Tertullian, ... Apologeticum. English.
>
> Yuji
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Fieg" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 2:52:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating 
> new/improved rda authority records
>
> It is amazing what my simple question long, long ago, about upgrading or
> not upgrading a record from which one derived an authority work (he has
> book in hand)--how far that question as evolved into something else.
> I am in a NACO funnel and was informed that the original language was not
> appended to the work uniform title.  It appears that there are a slew of
> decisions about whether that is correct, some based on various 
> sections of
> RDA--a good reason for someone to write a revisions whether it is 
> chapter 6
> or chapter 17.  I am reviewing some history in my head.  Here is what I
> came up with:
> In AACR2 we could have
> Tertullian
> Apologeticum. English & Latin
> Apology / by Tertullian; translated by....
> According to current standard that formulation cannot stand since the
> uniform title as so represented is a statement about work and expression.
> So the uniform title has to be expressed now as a work and an expression
> Tertullian
> Apologeticum (no language qualifer)
> and
> Tertullian
> Apologeticum. English. ...(other qulifiers when needed)
> As I understand it, that is what FRBR/RDA is now requiring.
>
> P.S.  I cannot waith for PCC to come out with its policy statement on
> uniform titles.
>
> Gene Fieg
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Language is currently not represented in RDA work descriptions, in
>> principle because the work transcends language.  The practical 
>> problem this
>> raises is that there's no property in the work description to 
>> determine the
>> content subfield $l for an expression in the original language. If 
>> the work
>> properties included "Original language of work," then that could be 
>> treated
>> as the language of the expression in some contexts and as part of the
>> work's history in other contexts, e.g., when the work as been 
>> translated,
>> and would not necessarily violate the concept that expressions 
>> inherit the
>> elements of the work description in full.  It could be left to local
>> systems to profile whether the original language of the work should be
>> included in access points.  A consensus practice around access point
>> construction would not be required if there were better consensus around
>> what properties need to be recorded.
>>
>> The examples Ian provides make another important point. Language is 
>> often
>> not an adequate distinguishing term to differentiate an expression.
>> Distinguishing an expression should be more dependent on some
>> characteristic more specific to that expression, like a translator 
>> name or,
>> in the case of original language editions, an editor name or other
>> identification.  Whether or not the original language appears in an 
>> access
>> point is really incidental to whether or not an expression per se is 
>> being
>> adequately designated.  A better test is whether an editor, 
>> translator, or
>> other identifying characteristic of the expression (other than 
>> language) is
>> given. Neither "Xenophon. $t Memorabilia" nor "Xenophon. $t 
>> Memorabilia. $l
>> Greek" are adequately differentiated expression access points.
>> Both "Xenophon. $t Memorabilia $s (Sauppe and Henderson)" and 
>> "Xenophon. $t
>> Memorabilia. $l Greek $s (Sauppe and Henderson)" are, in the context 
>> of a
>> particular catalog's policies and assuming any language of expression 
>> other
>> than the original language of the work would be included in all cases.
>>
>> Unless LC wants to give up its position that an expression access point
>> can be inferred from a work description (not the same thing as saying 
>> that
>> the work description and the expression description are the same thing),
>> RDA and LC-PCC PSs should instruct us to provide sufficient 
>> information for
>> systems to construct consistent, user-friendly, differentiated access
>> points for works or expressions.  For work descriptions, that should
>> include recording the original language of the work. For expression
>> descriptions, that should include more than just a language of 
>> translation
>> as potential access point components. How much differentiation a given
>> system offers its users between work and expression access points and
>> whether the language of original language expressions is included would
>> then become (at least in principle) a local decision.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Christopher Thomas 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have been struggling with the application of these principles to
>>> bilingual and multilingual legal works, particularly in 
>>> jurisdictions where
>>> works are issued concurrently in different languages (e.g. French and
>>> English in Canada).  The old LCRI 25.5C instructed us not to add the
>>> language to the uniform title in these cases, but RDA seems to 
>>> require an
>>> access point for each language expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Library of Congress has a record for Die Schweizerische
>>> Bundesverfassung :  |b St. Galler Kommentar
>>>
>>> https://lccn.loc.gov/2014477467
>>>
>>> This is a German-language commentary on the Swiss Constitution, which
>>> also includes the text of the constitution in German, French, and 
>>> Italian.
>>> The German title was chosen as the preferred title of the 
>>> constitution, so
>>> there is one 710:
>>>
>>> 710 12   |a Switzerland. |t Bundesverfassung (1999)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn’t this record have additional 710s for the French and Italian
>>> expressions?
>>>
>>> 710 12   |a Switzerland. |t Bundesverfassung (1999) |l French
>>>
>>> 710 12   |a Switzerland. |t Bundesverfassung (1999) |l Italian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Christopher Thomas | Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian*
>>>
>>> (949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 | [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> Law Library · University *of* California · Irvine
>>>
>>> www.law.uci.edu.library
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
>>> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2015 9:44 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating
>>> new/improved rda authority records
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I truly hate to disagree with Adam, but he has not necessarily given us
>>> an illustration of what *we* don't do; recording the expression of the
>>> original language is what many of us do do. In doing this we are 
>>> following
>>> the RDA instructions about core elements for the primary 
>>> relationships in
>>> 17.3:
>>>
>>> When recording primary relationships between a work, expression,
>>> manifestation and item, include as a minimum the work manifested. 
>>> *If there
>>> is more than one expression of the work*, record the expression 
>>> manifested.
>>>
>>> It's right there in black and white. And it doesn't mean "we'd have to
>>> add a 240 for every single work in its original language 
>>> expression." As we
>>> know OCLC did a study of works in its database some years back and
>>> discovered that the vast majority of works exist in only a single
>>> expression. The core relationship element for manifestations of 
>>> these works
>>> listed in 17.3 is the work manifested--there is no requirement for 
>>> these
>>> works to record the expression manifested. It is only when there is 
>>> more
>>> than one expression of the work that the expression manifested is 
>>> required
>>> to be recorded, so cross all those works that exist in only a single
>>> expression off the list of works that might need a 240 for an access 
>>> point
>>> for the original language expression.
>>>
>>> 17.3 does say, however, that when there is more than one expression 
>>> of a
>>> work we need to record the expression, and yes, including 
>>> expressions in
>>> the original language. This relationship is identified as a *core 
>>> element*.
>>> Given the results of the OCLC study, this is a core requirement for 
>>> only a
>>> small minority of works, so no, we wouldn't have to add an authorized
>>> access point (whether in 1XX/240 or 7XX) for every single work in its
>>> original language, just the ones that exist in more than one 
>>> expression.
>>> But we are expected, under 17.3, to record the expression for that 
>>> group
>>> that does exist in more than one expression. Yes, that means a bit more
>>> work in some cases, and implies a necessity to massage existing 
>>> records to
>>> sync up the access points. This is not the only example of an RDA
>>> instruction that requires us to do something beyond what we've done 
>>> in the
>>> past. I am convinced that most of these instructions, including this 
>>> one,
>>> greatly improve our user's ability to find, identify, and obtain the
>>> materials they need.
>>>
>>> I repeat, this is a core element in RDA. A lot of thought and debate 
>>> was
>>> put into what elements were identified as core; the core elements were
>>> chosen because they were thought to be the most crucial elements to
>>> finding, identifying, etc., resources. When something is identified 
>>> as a
>>> core element in RDA we shouldn't pass over it lightly and I don't 
>>> believe
>>> we should ignore this one (or any other). It, along with a lot of other
>>> parts of RDA, is quite different from AACR2. I think we've had 
>>> enough time
>>> by now to shake the AACR2 cobwebs out of our collective brains. I 
>>> think we
>>> need to begin implementing RDA and stop trying to hang on to past 
>>> practices
>>> as if for dear life.
>>>
>>> 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 Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2015 1:11:45 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
>>> authority records
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was illustrating what we DON'T do.  But we would have to in order to
>>> collocate a single expression in the original language with a 
>>> resource that
>>> has the original and a translation.  Basically we'd have to always 
>>> add a
>>> 240 for every single work in its original language expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:08 PM -0800, "Ted P Gemberling" <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene,
>>>
>>> I’ll admit I’m confused, too. In the examples below, Adam seems to
>>> conflict with what he says about collocation. If you don’t add the 
>>> original
>>> language to a work (or original expression?) in order not to lose
>>> collocation, why does his first example show the $l in the 240? The 
>>> same
>>> problem is really there in second example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, in her most recent posting, Yuji seems to conclude that what she
>>> said before was wrong. So what was the significance of LC-PCC PS 
>>> 6.27.3,
>>> which she cited?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry be dense, but maybe someone else is confused about the same 
>>> things.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any enlightenment.
>>>
>>> Ted Gemberling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Adam L. Schiff
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 8:30 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating
>>> new/improved rda authority records
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with adding the original language is that you lose
>>> collocation with manifestations that just contain the original. 
>>> Unless you
>>> also then add a 240 every time with the work title plus original 
>>> language.
>>> Which I doubt people will want to do as a matter of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Single original expression:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 100 Author
>>>
>>> 240 Work title. $l Original language
>>>
>>> 245 Title
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two expressions:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 100 Author
>>>
>>> 245 Title
>>>
>>> 700 12 Author. $t Work title. $l Original language.
>>>
>>> 700 12 Author. $t Work title. $l Second language.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>> From: Michael Chopey <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 6:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
>>> authority records
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for clearing that up, Bob.  Everything you said here makes 
>>> perfect
>>> sense, I think.
>>>
>>> So maybe this:
>>>
>>> 245 00 Han yi Menggu huang jin shi gang
>>> 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Chinese.
>>> 730 02 $i Container of (expression): $a Altan tobci. $l Mongolian.
>>>
>>> and this:
>>>
>>> 041 1# $a eng $a spa $h eng
>>> 100 1# $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $e author.
>>> 245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
>>> 246 31 $a Cartero
>>> 546 ## $a English and Spanish.
>>> 700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 
>>> 1953- $t
>>> Mail carrier. $l English
>>> 700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 
>>> 1953- $t
>>> Mail carrier. $l Spanish.
>>>
>>>
>>> I distinctly remember that there was more opposition to than support 
>>> for
>>> this approach when it was being discussed either here or on the RDA 
>>> list at
>>> some point after the Sept. 2012 LC RDA Training was released. I 
>>> wonder if
>>> there still is any opposition?
>>>
>>> Aloha,
>>> 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 2:27 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>> In RDA the only kind of description (including its accompanying
>>> authorized access point) that can stand for more than one entity is 
>>> for the
>>> person entity (see 8.6, 8.11, and 9.19.1.1), and PCC has disallowed 
>>> that.
>>> And even in 8.6/8.11/9.19.1.1 allowance for undifferentiation is only
>>> permitted within a single entity, not between different entities. 
>>> There is
>>> no justification in RDA for using the same description (and access 
>>> point)
>>> for a work and an expression, which are different entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Using the access point for the work to represent both the work and all
>>> expressions in the original language is an AACR2 practice that did 
>>> not come
>>> forward into RDA because it just doesn�t work in the
>>> FRBR/entity-relationship model which RDA is based on. AACR2�s 
>>> practice
>>> wasn�t necessarily bad, it was just based on a different model 
>>> from RDA.
>>> There has never as far as I know been a consensus that we should 
>>> revert to
>>> this AACR2 practice and in my opinion doing so would be a big 
>>> mistake. It
>>> is certainly possible for a cataloger to decide only to give access 
>>> to the
>>> work, but let�s not make the mistake of thinking that that access 
>>> point
>>> represents both a work and an expression in the original language. I 
>>> think
>>> this has been masked a bit by the earlier practice (that is, earlier 
>>> than
>>> the publication of the PCC guidelines on use of relationship 
>>> designators)
>>> of not necessarily using the relationship designator with the work or
>>> expression authorized access point, but the addition of the 
>>> relationship
>>> designator in cases such as this makes it perfectly clear what the
>>> authorized access point represents (as was the intent of the 
>>> relaitionship
>>> designator). There is no relationship designator �Container of 
>>> (work or
>>> expression)� because no such relationship exists in the model, so 
>>> we�re
>>> forced to realize that the access point is either for the work or 
>>> for an
>>> expression, but not both.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way it is certainly possible (and indeed it is not only possible
>>> but appears to be expected) under RDA 6.27.3 to add the original 
>>> language
>>> to the authorized access point for the work in order to construct an
>>> authorized access point representing �a particular expression of a
>>> work�, and a large number RDA authorized access points have been so
>>> established in the NAF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert L. Maxwell
>>> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
>>> 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 [
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Michael Chopey
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 3:52 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
>>> authority records
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bob.   I remember some time ago there was a desire by some 
>>> to add
>>> the language of the original to its 7XX analytical AP in these 
>>> cases, and I
>>> thought the consensus after that discussion was that the AAP for the
>>> original work stood for both the work (all expressions of it) and the
>>> original-language expression of the work.  But maybe I'm 
>>> misremembering or
>>> maybe there was no consensus.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2015 12:02 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>> As I understand the PCC practice, the last is the correct 
>>> formulation if
>>> you�re going to bring out the work and the Chinese expression. In any
>>> case, �730 02 $i Container of (expression): $t Altan tobci.� is not
>>> correct because �Altan tobci� stands for the work, not any 
>>> expression
>>> of the work (including the Mongolian expression).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert L. Maxwell
>>> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
>>> 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 [
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Michael Chopey
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 2:33 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda
>>> authority records
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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]>
>>> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage
>>> <[log in to unmask]> <[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]
>>>
>>> +(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]
>>>
>>> (206) 543-8409
>>>
>>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[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]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Gene Fieg <[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            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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
>> Data Management & Access, University Libraries
>> University of Minnesota
>> 160 Wilson Library
>> 309 19th Avenue South
>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
>> Ph: 612-625-2328
>> Fx: 612-625-3428
>> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>>
>