Re: [RDA-L] Placement of 7XX$i

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

I'm wondering whether it would be desirable to encode the FRBR category terms in a separate subfield, rather than include them in the same subfield ($i) as the type of relationship.  This would allow suppression of the FRBR terms from public displays, if desired, while still allowing for behind-the-scenes manipulation of this information, if included in the heading.    Liz O'Keefe     it would be possible to encode the FRBR category in a separate subfield, rather than in the $i. For situations where a subfield $i rather than a delimiter is used to indicate a relationshipRDA relationships for which there is no   Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY  10016-3405   TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org   Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org >>> "Kuhagen, Judith" <j...@loc.gov> 3/17/2011 12:23 PM >>> And, of course, I meant second indicator, not second delimiter. Apologies, Judy -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kuhagen, Judith Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Placement of 7XX$i If this specific RDA relationship is encoded in MARC, subfield $i isn't needed because 2nd delimiter with value "2" indicates the relationship.  Judy Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Placement of 7XX$i We have seen RDA test records with both: 700  $iContains (work):$a<Author>$t<Title> and 700  $a<Author>$t<Title>$iContains (work). Isn't only the first above correct?  (Since the introduction of 245 4h, 246, enhanced 505, and the change in order of 111 conference entry elements, MARC subfields are not always in alphabetical order.) Or is this another allowable RDA variation? So far no client has expressed an interest in having this subfield, but if we are to programm to remove it, we need to know how it will appear.    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________