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

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