Thanks that makes sense.
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).
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)
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.:
Lucretius Carus, Titus. $t De rerum natura. $n Liber 6. $l Latin $s (Godwin)
--Ben Abrahamse, MIT
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.