Print

Print


 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
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
>
>
>