Hal Cain said:
>Since the commonest relationship, and the most frequent application of
>240, is translation, and not every document discloses the title of the
>work/expression/manifestation from which it was translated, I can only
>suppose that the guiding spirits of BIBCO are not serious about the
>FRBR as applied in RDA.
While many of the new "standard" records call for less than AACR2, and
less than our clients want, e.g., parallel titles for serials,
collation for remote electronic resources, "justification" for all
added entries, 240 uniform title is one area in which our clients
agree with the simplified standards. Clients do not want a 240 which
differs in language and is not on the item, since they don't have a
record for the item in the original language to which to relate this
record; the display of the unknown title confuses patrons seeking the
known English title under author. They will accept 246 1
$iTranslation of:$a<Original title>, which is less work than a
500/730.
I suspect FRBR will confuse more than help patrons, implying that the
library has items it does not. Just as most items represent the
only work/expression/manifestation by a given author, most items in a
collection are the only manifestation of a work in the collection,
apart from Shakespeare and Bach.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
