Surely you can imagine that call number cutters are based on the 1XX for the purpose of shelving everything by particular “creators” together (especially fiction) in order to benefit stacks browsers. Some say that stacks-browsing is a very significant “discovery” method, but that concept certainly doesn’t matter to libraries that do not allow it—like the Library of Congress.
John G. Marr
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.
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.
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)
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
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