Robert Maxwell said:
I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be
willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a
Agree that it would be better to always use 7xx.
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you suggesting
that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245
is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase
substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more
authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc.
If 240 moves to 700 or 730, then we'd be made up, because that's exactly how
we've been managing what it looks like RDA's supposed to be doing for years! In
our catalogue, as in many, if you put the uniform title as an additional title
rather than the main title, it means when you put in that
Steven Arakawa wrote:
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245
is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase
substantially, no?
There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would
not be a change in the
It is a long time since I was first learning to catalog and not sure if the
rules in this area have changed. I do not often add 240's to records I create
locally, and don't change many in records downloaded from other sources.
That being said, my understanding of 240's to give a title that
I forwarded this discussion to our music cataloger, Neil Hughes. With his
permission, I am sharing his response below. On my own behalf, I have to say
that I would miss the 240 most when it represents the original language title
for the translation being cataloged. I realize that part of
What is the effect on filing and display in the OPAC? Despite all promises
made at the beginnings of computerization over 40 years ago, the sort in
computer systems has never, in my opinion, been as good as the card catalog,
organized according to the LC filing rules. Only once, at an ALA
What I was thinking of was:
100 Smith, John
240 Poems. Selections
245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones.
700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections.
In catalog:
245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau.
If 100/240 is eliminated:
130 Nature (Vanity Press)
245 Nature / selected
But what *is* the 130 in your examples? The AAP for the work/expression is in
the 700 field. In MARC, the meaning of the 130 is uniform title main entry
heading (AACR2) or authorized access point for a work entered under title
(RDA). What kind of construction is Nature (Vanity Press), and
No. I am suggesting that in cases where we would now use 1XX/240 to record the
authorized access point for the work or expression we use 7XX instead.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Or perhaps, Beedle|c(Bard: Fictitious Character)?
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, rball...@frontier.com
rball...@frontier.com wrote:
I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized
access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally
entered under the
There are two types of relationships being discussed here, in moving 240 to a
700 name-title access point.
Primary relationships (RDA 17), such as Work Manifested, are for relationships
like work-to-manifestation relationships.
Related works (RDA 25) include whole-part relationships, such as
Mary said:
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you
suggesting that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
The thread began (as the subject line indicates) with how to handle
alternate titles. I suggested a 246 for the alternate title, but not
the first
Jennifer quoted Neil:
It isn't really correct to say Contains (expression) (all
arrangements are considered to be expressions). It IS an expression;
it doesn't contain one, the way a compilation or aggregate work
might ...
That is a very* good point, and a reaction I had to the earlier 700
Michael Borries said:
So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will
patrons see? How is this envisioned?
Our clients tell us that they see two hits for the same item with an
author search, one for the 100 and one for the 700, making patrons
think there are two items.
I think if AACR2 clearly says Shortest Form, and RDA still allows
Omission of Levels, and LC/PCC only says Generally Not to Omit, I'd
stick with the AACR2 way, at least until machines take over.
It is to the point and sufficient, consistent with past practice, and
at least still not against RDA
For the compilation with poems by Smith and Jones, you are providing access to
the works of Smith and the works of Jones via 700 a/t, but the title of the
compilation as a work in itself is conflicting with other compilation titles in
245 $a with the same title proper.
I think you are a right
If the creator's name is part of the AAP, there is no conflict, unless the
combination of name and preferred title are the same[footnote]. The title
proper of one work being the same as the title proper of a different work is
not in itself a conflict. Conflicts only apply to *authorized
A translator is not a creator, so they would never be used in the authorized
access point for the work, unless in addition to translating they adapted the
work so much that it it becomes a new work (“translated and RETOLD by Hermione
Granger”). Granger would get a 700 added entry. You can
I guess I just don't have a problem with saying that a manifestation
contains a single work. The manifestation is just a physical (or
remote-access) object. It's a packaging device. So I don't have any
trouble with the notion that the package could contain one work or
expression. I think
The 240 field for RDA would be used for a resource that consisted of a
single work with a creator, where the title proper of the manifestation is
not the preferred title of the work. In addition, the 240 would be used for
an expression other than the original of that single work with a
Steven,
If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a
130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each
record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all.
So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation
title
Both work titles and conventional collective titles fall under the category of
preferred titles. I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need
to break the conflict in such cases, but conventional collective titles are
assigned deliberately to collocate different
So, do they only want one subject per record, fearing that users will discover
the same book twice if there are two subjects, and so on?
When I was a classics major, I used to get duplicate hits in the card catalog,
if I searched under the original language of the work and its translation (at
Steven Arakawa wrote:
Both work titles and conventional collective titles fall under the category
of preferred titles. I understand that work titles can conflict and we would
need to break the conflict in such cases, but conventional collective titles
are assigned deliberately to collocate
Adam, that makes sense, but we still end up with an additional AAP (and an
authority record?) in whichever tag, don't we?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT
Steven,
Yes, probably, unless we agree not to always provide an work access point
for the compilation itself. We have already basically agreed not to do
that for compilations of works by different entities without a collective
title (6.27.1.4 alternative, where LC/PCC decision is not to
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Steven Arakawa wrote:
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245
is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase
substantially, no?
There would be no increase resulting from such a change,
steven Arakawa posted:
I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break
the conflict in such cases ...
Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as
Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the
same preferred title if they are
The following ACOC and CILIP responses for the November 2013 JSC meeting
are available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html
):
6JSC/ACOC/8/CILIP response
6JSC/ALA/22/CILIP response
6JSC/ALA/24/CILIP response
6JSC/ALA/25/CILIP response
6JSC/ALA/26/CILIP response
32 matches
Mail list logo
