Mike,

I recall reporting that as an error but guess it never got fixed.  It's a work access point so the designator must be for work too. 

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900




On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:15 PM -0800, "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

But in that same example (bottom of page 23), the original work's AAP without the language attribute is called an expression:


Example: Parallel text

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 Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.*

700 12 $i Contains (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.*



Adapted from LC training materials developed by Les Hawkins and Hien Nguyen.


Mike


On 12/11/2015 4:16 PM, Yuji Tosaka wrote:
According to the PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines Task Group Report below (page 23) as well as the current LC-PCC PS 6.27.3, the fist 700 field would not have a subfield $l. I remember that this LC-PCC PS was changed in the summer of 2012 so that the original language of expression is not recorded in the authorized access point.

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCC-Relat-Desig-TG-report.rtf

--
Yuji Tosaka
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
The College of New Jersey
Ewing, NJ 08628-0718
Phone: (609) 771-2156

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:48:44 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda authority records

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]] *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]] *On Behalf Of *Michael Chopey
    *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 2:33 PM
    *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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