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.)


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"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 John Hostage <[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
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
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]] 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