I agree with Chris and Thomas on this: the purpose of the 800 field is to indicate the relationship of the work being described to a related work (the series it is in). Just as the purpose of an analytical 700 is to reference a related work (e.g., based on)
25.1.1.3 tells us there are three ways to reference a related work, through: 1. a linking identifier 2. an Authorized Access Point for the related work 3a. a structured description of the related work; or 3b. an unstructured description of the related work. Since we are not using linking identifiers to reference related entities, in our current MARC environment, we use Authorized Access Points; so the 800 must contain the Authorized Access Point for the related work, and could contain a Relationship Designator to explain the relationship between the two *works*. At this point, I assume we are using the 800 tag to indicate the series relationship rather than adding $i In Series (Work). So, the 800 is not the place to indicate the relationship of the creator to the series work-that has to be done (somehow) in the record for the series (whether that is another Bib record, or an authority record) and this 800 should read: 800 1_ $a Snyder, Maria V. $t Healer series ; $v 2. Deborah ------ Deborah Fritz MARC Database Consultant The MARC of Quality www.marcofquality.com Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904 Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: > > RDA Chapters 6.27 to 6.31 cover all the elements that are > used for authorized access points for works. The authorized > access points use only elements that are attributes for > entities (such as preferred title, form of work, date of > work, etc.). A person's name is often part of the authorized > point for the work, but once added to create the access point > the whole string is used to identify only the work entity. > > A relationship designator is an element that is used between > two entities, such as between a person and a work. > > One would therefore have a relationship between two entities > expressed in this way: > > Snyder, Maria V. > > <author> of work: > > Snyder, Maria V. Healer series > > with the full exact string "Snyder, Maria V. Healer series" > standing in as the controlled identifier of the work. --- Chris Rae Todd wrote: > > > > I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship > > between a resource and the series that it is part of. I > also went back > > to chapter 6 to look at the instructions for creating authorised > > access points for works. > > The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access > point for > > the creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the > > work. The relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of > > this structure, so I'm assuming it would not be part of the > 800 field. > > > > Is that how others see this situation? --- > > Kevin M. Randall wrote: > > > > What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on > > RDA instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships > between Works, > > Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, > "Authorized > > Access Point Representing the Related Work or Expression". > This is an > > access point, dealing with the relationship between related > resources > > (in this case the resource being cataloged and the series > of which it > > is a part). > > > > Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the > > manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording > Attributes > > of Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement". > > Putting the series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, > > would result in something like this (I'm guessing at what > may actually > > be appearing on the > > resource): > > > > 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2 --- > > Lynne J. LaBare wrote: > > > > > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the > correct way > > > to record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 > > > field. The example I have is as follows: > > > > > > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2. > > > > > > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 > correctly. Thank > > you.
