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
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(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.
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
"Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii