Print

Print


When the MARC policies were created when we first started out in RDA there were lots of possibilities. I personally advocated for doing away with the use of 240 which is bizarre and confusing and causes indexing and authority problems (as has been pointed out below) and just using 7XX for name-title authorized access points. However, the policy finally came down to this:

 

If there is one work or expression represented by the bibliographic record, use 1XX + 240 to encode the authorized access point for the work or expression.

 

If there are more than one work or expression represented by the bibliographic record, do not use 1XX + 240; use 7XX fields for each work and/or expression. (This does not mean that there will be no 1XX field in the record—if all the works/expressions are by the same creator, the creator’s AAP would still appear in 1XX.)

 

I also advocated for eliminating the 130 entirely, since the other 1XX fields represented creators, but there is no way you can argue that an AAP consisting of just a title is a “creator”. But that suggestion didn’t fly, alas.

 

And yes, on the language of the original expression, RDA makes no distinction between language of original expression and other languages—it just has “language of expression”. So it makes sense to me to include the language as part of the expression AAP, no matter whether it’s the original language or a translated language. That groups together the expressions by language, which is a logical grouping in my opinion. So I always include language when creating an expression AAP (if it’s a resource that has language, like a text). I don’t think the AACR2 practice (of omitting the language if it was the original language) is at all evident to our users. I’ve asked, and it seems clearer to them to have the language included in all cases.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 100/240 vs 100/700

 

Hello Stephen,

 

just to clarify, the authority record for this expression (no2019072701) was created at Princeton, not by me. But it follows the pattern I have used in many other expression-level records.

 

Yes, you are right, when I catalog a bilingual edition containing the original language of expression along with a translation, I use 100/245 plus two 700 name/titles.

 

In such records, I use the subfield $l for language precisely because it is an expression-level record, and RDA 6.11, Language of expression, designates Language as a core element of an expression, making no distinction between the original language of expression and the language of translation.

 

Work-level records, in contrast, include no information about language, as language is not an attribute of a work.

 

The consequence of this is that work-level authority records are primarily needed to provide subject access points for works that are about another work.

 

Edited texts, on the other hand, involve the creation of expression-level authority records, meaning that they can (or really should, in my view) include one or more of the elements listed at 6.27.3.

 

I'm grateful to our colleague Bob Maxwell, who provided excellent guidance for these situations, and who has created many such pairs of authority records -- perhaps he will chime in as well.

 

An example of an authority record pair I've created:

 

no2018091042 (Athanasius, $c Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria, $d -373. $t Life of St. Antony. $l Greek $s (Bartelink)

 

no2018091041 (Athanasius, $c Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria, $d -373. $t Life of St. Antony. $l French $s (Bartelink)

 

see OCLC bib record #29958752.

 

regards,

Charles Croissant


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700

 

Charles,

 

                Interesting! And I see you included $l Latin in the 700 name/title even though the original work is in Latin. Also interesting.

Curious: how would you construct the record if it were Latin with parallel English translation? Presumably 100/245 plus two 700 name/titles, one with $l Latin and the other with $l English? If you’ve cataloged a work like that, feel free to share the OCLC#.

               

 

Stephen T. Early

Cataloger

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood

Chicago, IL  60637

773-955-4545 x326

[log in to unmask]

CRL website: www.crl.edu

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 100/240 vs 100/700

 

Dear Yang,

 

I'm an advocate of the "100/700" practice you describe, so I will take a stab at articulating my reasons. 

 

Yes, I prefer this practice because it seems more friendly to the Linked Data environment. I believe it also conforms better to the instructions for access points found in RDA 6.27, where the instruction for creating an authorized access point for a work call for us to _combine_ the authorized access point for the creator with the preferred title for the work -- access points for specific expressions then consist of adding additional elements to this authorized access point for the work.

 

I believe that in the MARC environment, this combination of creator's name plus preferred title of work fits better in a 700 name-title added entry. Using this option enables us to link ("control", in OCLC terms) a heading for an expression to its underlying authority record. If we use the 100/240 option, by contrast, we are not able to link the heading to an authority record (which, by the way, we should probably now be referring to as "identity record for an expression").

 

I have always viewed the 100/240 split as an unfortunate legacy from the very early days of MARC, when the primary purpose of MARC was to automate the printing of catalog cards. Putting the "uniform title" in a separate MARC field presumably made it easier for the machine to place the uniform title in the position on the card where it traditionally belonged, between the "main entry" and the title statement, and also to more easily provide the prescribed punctuation of square brackets.

 

Regarding the use of a subject entry for the work, I believe it is appropriate to add such a heading when the manifestation contains, in addition to the edited text, a substantial critical introduction that examines the nature and history of the work. In that case, I believe adding the subject entry provides useful access to scholars looking for information about a specific work. It wouldn't be appropriate to add such a 600 unless the manifestation did in fact contain valuable critical and historical information. I don't think there is currently any attempt to add such 600's automatically.

 

Regards,

Charles Croissant

Saint Louis University

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 7:21 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