Would they also send back a record with a 240 with the original title plus a
language for a translation when the original title doesn't appear on the
resource? If you're gonna code a record as RDA, then I think you need to
adhere to the standard. Especially when contributing a record to a shared
database. What one does in ones local catalog is completely different, but
we would not be happy to find copy with the practice you're suggesting, Mac.
We would instruct catalogers here to upgrade the record to the standard.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-----Original Message-----
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:18 AM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation
you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title
(or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed.
I would substitute "according to present rules you would" for "have
to" above.
Our small library clients would send that record back to us saying the
240 does not appear on the item. The chance of any of them having the
two is very slim, so no need for the 240 to being them together. They
will accept a 246 1 $iOriginally issued as:$a, so that anyone
searching by the original title will find it. Field 246 is indexed in
more ILS than 240. due to the large number of form 240s useless for
access.
Rules are a means to and end, not an end in themselves.
I agree that no relationship designator is appropriate. No 700
duplicating the 100 is needed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
