[RDA-L] 240 uniform title
I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic record clearly to my staff. I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and welcome any direction to specific training in depth about the choices of MARC tags in different situations. I understand that the title in question Nuclear weapons : ‡b factors leading to cost increases with the uranium processing facility (OCLC863158972 for those with access) is the first of a predicted quarterly report. Is it disingenuous to ask whether it was appropriate to create this 240 in the record for the first of the series when RDA LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 says under General: Do not predict a conflict. My understanding is that one waited until the 2nd report (the conflict) appeared in order to make the uniform title in this situation. Or alternatively; create a serial record. Can someone clarify? Many thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
I agree that degree-granting institution doesn't really fit for the department in which a thesis was prepared, although it's certainly very useful to record this relationship. There doesn't seem to be anything else which can be used: Host institution or sponsoring body would certainly be a far stretch. Might this be a case for an additional relationship designator under I.2.2, something like institution where a work has been prepared? Admittedly, this sounds awful, but it still might come in handy for preparing department bibliographies and the like. In addition, there's the possibility to record the department as an affiliation of the person according to 9.13. By the way: Why is affiliation an attribute of the person? It seems to me that this is a relationship between a person and a corporate body, so it should be in chapter 32. In the German authority file, we have a link between the record for the person and the record for the corporate body in such a case. Heidrun On 03.12.2013 00:27, Rose-Ann Movsovic wrote: I'm reckoning that the University is the degree-granting institution, the department is just where the researcher was based. If we contributed records to OCLC we would strip out the department name and just leave the University. However, I should probably stop procrastinating and just amend the template without worrying about the $e! -- Rose-Ann Movsovic Collections Manager University of Reading Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of John Hostage [host...@law.harvard.edu] Sent: 02 December 2013 22:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 RDA appendix I.2.2 has the relationship designator degree granting institution. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Rose-Ann Movsovic Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 05:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 I don't know the answer to this question but locally we add an entry for the name of the department the author belonged to because our users want to be able to retrieve lists of theses by department. I haven't come up with a relationship designator for that which is holding up our converting the thesis template to RDA. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 02 December 2013 09:57 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 I'm not quite certain about the meaning of faculty in the element Dissertation or Thesis Information. 7.9.3.3 reads: Record the name of the granting institution or faculty. I assume that the example University College, London is supposed to illustrate a case where the degree is granted by a faculty rather than the university (which would be the University of London). Is this correct? The reason for my question is that I'm wondering about German doctoral theses. There, usually both the name of the university and the name of the faculty within this university are given, e.g.: Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften der Georg-August- Universitaet Goettingen (i.e. Thesis for obtaining the doctoral degree of the Faculty for Agricultural Sciences of the Georg August University Goettingen). Up to now, in such a case we've only recorded the name of the university, but not the name of the faculty. I also can't remember ever having seen an AACR2 record including a faculty of a German university. This impression fits in with the example Freie Universitaet Berlin in 7.9.3.3 (without information about the respective faculty, which probably was given on the source of information as well). My feeling is that in Germany, a faculty is basically an administrative division. It's not at all comparable to the independent character of the University College London (Wikipedia says: For most practical purposes, ranging from admissions to funding, the constituent colleges operate as individual universities, and some have recently obtained the power to award their own degrees whilst remaining in the federation.). So I would prefer to give the name of the university only, without the faculty. How would you handle the case of the German universities and when would you use the faculty? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi --
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
John, I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the name of the department or faculty for dissertations from their own university. Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the faculty or department where the thesis was prepared. I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a faculty, I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two cases in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one of them would illustrate the second case - and the University College was the only one which stuck somewhat out. Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here? but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty. It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: the granting institution or faculty? I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): The Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same impression. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
Mac, Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b. (...) The institution in 502 $b may be traced with $edegree granting institution, whether the university or the school (aka faculty) within the university. Professional schools such as law, medicine, and theology often grant degrees rather than the larger university. Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually grants its own degrees (instead of the larger university)? As I said in my last mail, in Germany I believe the subunits do not grant degrees in their own right. But it may be different in the Anglo-American world. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Habilitation theses
On a related note: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr. habil. to somebody who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or herself a Privatdozent (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no academic degree. According to the German cataloging rules, we only record Habilitationsschrift (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record Dissertation (without distinguishing between e.g. Dr. phil. and Dr. med.). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of Dr. habil. or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation I don't have an answer to your question, but an observation that the old ALA cataloging rules and AACR1 had special instructions on Habilitationsschriften. These disappeared under AACR2. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses
Since habilitation is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for habilitation or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have to figure out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if it is necessary). It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB: #778631115 Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen. 500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses On a related note: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr. habil. to somebody who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or herself a Privatdozent (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no academic degree. According to the German cataloging rules, we only record Habilitationsschrift (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record Dissertation (without distinguishing between e.g. Dr. phil. and Dr. med.). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of Dr. habil. or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
Heidrun asked:
Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually
grants its own degrees ...
When next in my doctor's office, I will check his degree on the wall.
We will note and trace (500/710) the department, and faculty adviser
(500/700$epraeses), if the client wishes, but not include them in 502.
We only include the degree granting body there.
The instruction says degree granting institution *or* faculty, not
*and* faculty. So unless the faculty granted the degree, it does not
go in 502.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title
Patricia, If the combination of author + title is identical to another work then a 240 would be needed to differentiate this work from others. Typically only a year is used, not year month date. You only break the conflict when there already is one, not when you expect/suspect there will be one. I'm wonder why you don't just catalog it as a serial though, in which case there won't be a conflict. Also, you don't know for sure that Trimble will be the creator of each of the quarterly reports. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic record clearly to my staff. I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and welcome any direction to specific training in depth about the choices of MARC tags in different situations. I understand that the title in question Nuclear weapons : ‡b factors leading to cost increases with the uranium processing facility (OCLC863158972 for those with access) is the first of a predicted quarterly report. Is it disingenuous to ask whether it was appropriate to create this 240 in the record for the first of the series when RDA LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 says under General: Do not predict a conflict. My understanding is that one waited until the 2nd report (the conflict) appeared in order to make the uniform title in this situation. Or alternatively; create a serial record. Can someone clarify? Many thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses
Ben, You're right. We'll try and work something out. One idea which has already come up is defining an additional element which would express the character of a thesis instead of a specific degree. But isn't it amazing how these cultural differences pop up at the most unexpected places. I wasn't even aware that there was a difficulty with habilitation theses until a colleague pointed me to it. Heidrun Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Since habilitation is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for habilitation or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have to figure out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if it is necessary). It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB: #778631115 Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen. 500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses On a related note: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr. habil. to somebody who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or herself a Privatdozent (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no academic degree. According to the German cataloging rules, we only record Habilitationsschrift (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record Dissertation (without distinguishing between e.g. Dr. phil. and Dr. med.). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of Dr. habil. or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
I think we're looking at this a little too closely. This element grew out of a note in AACR2 practice. It was never intended to be so precise. Note that in 7.9.1.3 it says the name of the institution or faculty to which the thesis was presented (see 7.9.3) but in 7.9.3 it's granting institution or faculty. A slight difference, but we're not constructing a database of information about theses, so it's not significant for our purposes. I agree that in most cases it is the university that grants the degree, though it may act through its faculties or schools. For cataloging purposes I don't think it's necessary for RDA to specify which one or to make a distinction. Individual cataloging agencies or communities could make policies for what information they want to record. As for Habilitationsschriften, they can be accommodated in the present element. You could record Habilitationsschrift in 7.9.2.3. It wouldn't hurt to propose a revision to broaden that instruction to include such terms. I wouldn't like to see new specialized elements created. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:39 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 John, I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the name of the department or faculty for dissertations from their own university. Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the faculty or department where the thesis was prepared. I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a faculty, I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two cases in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one of them would illustrate the second case - and the University College was the only one which stuck somewhat out. Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here? but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty. It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: the granting institution or faculty? I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): The Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same impression. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed? What *might* get noticed is a change in communication formats, but not in rules. This is what I have been thinking about for a while as I read these discussions: What if we gave a standard and nobody came, but some other powerful, oblivious standard came for us? Cindy
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 03.12.2013 17:38, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty. It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: the granting institution or faculty? I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): The Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same impression. [to the situation in Germany] Scientific degrees are granted by the university (for medical, judical and other professions there additionally or alternatively exist state-recognized exams (Staatsexamen)). However the procedure is governed by the Promotionsordnung as part of the Pruefungsordnung: These regulations are set up by the faculty (Fakultaet or Fachbereich) and have to be approved by the state ministry specifically responsible for higher education. And in the many recent cases where deprivation(?) of the doctoral degree was executed, the faculties were exercising the formal procedure (notwithstanding parallel investigations with respect to scientific misconduct performed or directed by the university itself). Historically doctorates could only be acquired on (full) universities, and these are qualified by possessing the full bouquet of faculties (theology, philosophy, medicine, law and mathematics). Therefore I doubt that even in former times a single faculty ever was degree-/granting/. The different faculties of a university might have differences in reputation, but usually the faculty should be derivable from the subject. I can imagine cases where precise knowledge of the faculty would give valuable hints for assessing the work, e.g. when a thesis with an impressive title soaking of physics was actually presented to the law faculty... viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlKeVBkACgkQYhMlmJ6W47OI0gP/bpZhmkuVjNBVUOEJb1dX7ZY1 0VPVJqButAFn/jWxFcFFgVIm43+STSihcMpfroEjI2htX/+1slwuQFVoq7TRlJGq aj4W/uFwagOGyjiqNl37/qHYl/j0p/N+/EqLFhXEiF+PVJ1EzVuPXzKM1nD+iP9m QbWb+cpBFEoxck8IGFw= =I2fx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Hi Adam,
What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator level
and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?
Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a 1XX,
like this:
110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.
Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
710 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher
We've encountered this situation many times.
Thanks for your help!
Ryan J. Finnerty
Head, Database and Authorities Management | NACO Coordinator
UC San Diego Library | Metadata Services
rfinne...@ucsd.edu | (858) 822-3138
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Neither an issuing body nor a host institution is a creator in RDA, so using
those relationship designators in 110 fields is not correct. Works are not
named by combining the authorized access point for issuing body or host
institution with the preferred title for the work. To be a 110, the corporate
body must be a creator. Choose from the relationship designators for creators
and if there isn't an appropriate one there (I think author is perfectly fine
and allowable for corporate bodies and families as well as persons), then use
the element name, in this case creator.
Adam Schiff
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:23:35 -0800
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Pete Wilson asked:
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an
exhibition= n catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate
body--e.g., a museum= . The museum put on the exhibit, published the
catalog and owns all the ar= t involved. What is the appropriate
relationship designator for the 100 fo= r the museum?
Most exhibition catalogues of a single artist are entered under artist.
We use $eartist.
In the rare instance of an exhibition catalogue entered under the
museum (which would be 110 not 100), we use $ehost institution in the
absence of anything really appropriate. Another possibility is
$eissuing body.
We only use $eauthor for persons. At an IFLA meet, an European
cataloguer sniffed at me and said corporate bodies don't write books,
people do. There is a certain truth to that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator
Finnerty, Ryan rfinne...@ucsd.edu wrote: What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator level and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)? Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a 1XX, like this: 110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher. Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this: 110 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author 710 2_ Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher The name access point is usually only given one time, with a chain of designators attached to it. So the former is the most common of those you give above. See Guideline #10 in the PCC Guidelines on Relationship Designators for a summary on this for 1xx/7xx $e/$j: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
