Print

Print


What seems confusing to me, at least, is making a leap from representing 
the expression in the original language for collocation by constructing 
the same access point as for the work (LC practice in LC-PCC 6.27.3), to 
applying work-level relationship designator "Container of (work)" for 
this expression (especially because RDA 6.27.3 is about "authorized 
access point representing an expression"). It would be good to know if 
there has been some PCC documentation that I may have missed which 
illustrates best practices here.

Yuji

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Chopey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Yuji Tosaka" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 5:37:28 PM
Subject: Re: Replacing entry points after creating new/improved rda 
authority records

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
>>
>