Print

Print


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]] *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]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> on
>     behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 7:45:57 AM
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on
>     behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 22:04
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
>