Print

Print


This is just another case of ILSs not being able to read a Marc record.
240 is for the uniform title.  700s indicate related works, expressions,
etc.
700 #2 indicates that such and such a work is *included* in the
manifestation at hand.
ILSs were good at interpreting such notes as those regarding where a serial
was indexed, but not the 700s.  I remember telling someone maintaining our
joint catalogs that 700 #2 meant "it contains."  She was very, very
surprised and created some language to indicate such containment in a
work.  Also in the old days the III display, by showing the record in a
card catalog format, made reading the catalog easier for the patron.
Those days are gone, especially with the format of WorldCat.

Gene Fieg

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:18 AM Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks that makes sense.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Charles Croissant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 11:11 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700
>
>
>
> Hello Ben,
>
>
>
> I cataloged this manifestation De rerum natura for our library, so I can
> speak to the question you just raised:
>
>
>
> The manifestation contains the full text of Lucretius's De rerum natura,
> which the author divided into 6 books ("libri").
>
>
>
> The Latin title used on this manifestation translates as "Six books on the
> nature of things."
>
>
>
> So it is not the case that this manifestation contains only Book 6 of De
> rerum natura; rather, it contains the entire work. Thus, the access point
> for this manifestation has no subfield n, but rather uses the preferred to
> title for this work as a whole, which is simply De rerum natura (see NAR n
> 81120503).
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Charles Croissant
>
> Saint Louis University
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Benjamin A Abrahamse <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:56 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700
>
>
>
> I cannot answer your main question re: 240 vs 700 x2, but I do wonder why
> the title access point and its corresponding authority record
> (no2019072701) lack a $n?
>
> I would have thought, based on the 245 (“De rerum natura libri VI”) it
> should be either:
>
> 100 10 $a Lucretius Carus, Titus, $e author.
>
> 240 10 $a De rerum natura. $n Liber 6 $l Latin $s (Deufert)
>
> Or…
>
> 700 12 $a Lucretius Carus, Titus. $t De rerum natura. $n Liber 6 $l Latin
> $s (Deufert)
>
> I see other access points that follow this pattern, e.g.:
> no2017012194
>
> Lucretius Carus, Titus. $t De rerum natura. $n Liber 6. $l Latin $s
> (Godwin)
>
>
>
> --Ben Abrahamse, MIT
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 8:22 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>