Print

Print


I think Adam has it right, at least if we're talking MARC records here.  I really, really, really don't think that there was any expectation that we'd be duplicating information in bib records by using 7XX fields with the subject RDs in addition to 6XX fields.  Where these new RDs are important is in a non-MARC environment, or in a MARC context that lacks coding for subject relationships (that is, authority records).  MARC bib records already have coding for subject relationships that can be translated into RDA relationship designators.

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

While they COULD be used in 700, I think really their main use would be in authority records.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 6:04:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

While I agree with much of what's been said in this thread, I also have a practical question:

 

the LC-PCC-PS at M.2 states:

 

LC practice/PCC practice: The relationship designators found in M.2.2-M.2.5, if used, are recorded in $i of a 7XX added entry field or a 7XX linking entry field, or incorporated into a note. If applying LCSH, the optional use of these relationship designators does not replace any applicable LCSH subject access fields (e.g., a 6XX heading for a work in a bibliographic record that represents a commentary on that work).

 

All these proposed terms will be entering at M.2.6 or later and thus are currently outside the scope of the LC-PCC-PS. Thus my question is: will the scope of the policy statement be adjusted to incorporate these new terms and therefore we'll be entering an array such as:

 

 

130 0 _ Ali (Motion picture)

 

600 1 0 Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

 

700 1 _ $i Description of (person): $a Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

 

That is, so long as we're cataloging in the MARC environment, will we be doubling subject access points for Agents?

 


in solidarity, 

 

Netanel Ganin

------------------------------------------------------------

Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty

Brandeis University

(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]

 

My pronouns are he/him/his