Print

Print


Just a question.  Wht can't a 240 be controlled?  Is because of Marc?  Or
because ILSs could not read Marc?

Gene Fieg

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The 245 field has long been expected to fill a dual role, both describing
> a manifestation and naming a work, often in combination with the 1XX,
> except when it doesn’t.  These roles evolved from the card catalog. I
> assume that in a post-MARC world, this dual role won’t be possible, and the
> 1XX field will have no meaning.  Presumably we will describe some resource
> that we are cataloging. It will be a manifestation that embodies one or
> more expressions of one or more works.  Agents have relationships to these
> works and expressions, not to the resource as a whole.  The relationships
> that agents can have to manifestations (RDA ch. 21) are not relevant to
> this discussion.
>
>
>
> Some years ago (a couple of decades ago?) MARBI considered a proposal to
> do away with field 240 and use subfield $t, etc., in 1XX.  Unfortunately
> for us, this proposal was rejected.  I can understand Charles’ desire to
> circumvent this, because the 240 can’t be controlled, and it’s very hard to
> make any system understand the link between it and the 1XX.  However, that
> is not PCC policy, as far as I know, and this record is coded pcc.  As
> Robert R. points out, if there is no 240 and the 245 does not represent the
> work/expression embodied, what is the 100 related to?  It’s redundant.
>
>
>
> As for the 600, wouldn’t scholars expect to find criticism and/or
> commentary in a critical edition of a classical work?  In that sense, a
> subject entry seems unnecessary.  According to SHM H 1435, if 20% or more
> of the “work” (i.e., resource) is commentary, then assign a subject heading
> for the work.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> 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 [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Robert J. Rendall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2019 13:01
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700
>
>
>
> As it's currently constructed, #1097195974 contains two different AAPs:
>
>
>
> Lucretius Carus, Titus. De rerum natura libri VI    [the 100/245]
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> Lucretius Carus, Titus. De rerum natura. Latin (Deufert)     [the 700,
> coded as an "analytical entry"]
>
>
>
> What are these two different AAPs supposed to be representing?  There's
> only one text of De rerum natura here.
>
>
>
> I don't think the record makes sense as it is, and probably results from
> confusion among the different options given in RDA 6.27.1.6, none of which
> correspond exactly to what you see here.  Since Deufert's editorial
> contributions have no separate title of their own, this work looks like it
> should be treated as "an expression of a previously existing work," with
> Lucretius as creator in the 100 and the rest of the single AAP needed
> entered in a 240 according to standard practice.  See for example
> #932577112.
>
>
>
> Robert Rendall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
>
> 102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/535+West+114th+Street,+New+York,+NY+10027?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:23 AM Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> OCLC bib#: 1097195974
>
> I have noticed a new trend in assigning name/title access points by BIBCO
> catalogers. Instead of 100 + 240 combination, now 100 + 700 [#]2
> combination is being used. I was wondering what rationale was behind this
> practice. My personal guess: it is more “friendly” to the Linked Data
> environment, that is, an URI can be assigned directly to the authorized
> access point in 7XX. But when did the current practice start? Is there a
> new instruction which we should follow?
>
> BTW, it had 100/240 not too long ago (in late May 2019).
>
> 600 10 (Lucretius Carus, Titus. $t De rerum natura) was also added later,
> as if the work being described were about Lucretius’s work, at least
> partially. My comment:
>
> 1) If the intention of doing so is to bring out the aspect of textual
> transmission and criticism, I can understand. If so, shouldn’t all standard
> classical texts (from Bude, Teubner, Oxford) be treated this way?
>
> 2) But if, a big if, this 600 field is machine-generated and used merely
> to provide an authorized access point to the work itself (at the work level
> in RDA terms), presumably coming from a non-MARC system (BIBFRAME?), then,
> I question its validity.
>
> Yang
>
> PUL
>
>
>
>