Re: “Date of work”.  A fine example of “work” in the extra-RDA context meaning something other than “Work” in the RDA/FRBR/LRM context.  The kicker here is that the MARC definition of the bib X00 $f<> begins: “Date of publication used with …”

As a former RDA trainer, I agree with others that RDA training missed the mark on this matter since the early days.  Ditto differentiating same-language expressions within access points.

Mark K. Ehlert                                 Alma: NA02
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian          Primo: MT NA01
O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library, University of St. Thomas

  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [External] Re: [PCCLIST] Qualifiers for "Selections"

I think one problem is the structure of RDA itself. The info is in there, but it is hard to fully connect the dots to determine how to properly construct and qualify access points. It doesn’t help that resources like OCLC bib formats have confusing examples. For example, in the 7xx field help, $f is called “date of work” and has this example:  700 02 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Teresa, ǂc of Avila, Saint, ǂd 1515-1582. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections. ǂl English. ǂf 1998. Yes, that could in fact be valid expression heading if there was only 1 selection of Teresa’s works, but it probably should be ǂa Teresa, ǂc of Avila, Saint, ǂd 1515-1582. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections (1998) ǂl English, which is also an expression heading, but with the work part properly disambiguated. I can’t blame people who see this and follow the format.