I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-) 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. (or alternately, without the relationship designator) 700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression authorized access points? Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from "we've always done it that way")? At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? In my opinion it would be better for training (e.g., you only have to explain one way to record an AAP for a work/expression) and better for systems (e.g. OCLC and most other systems can't control 1XX/240, but can control the string in 7XX; and many can't index the name-title if it's split into two MARC fields) if we abandoned the clumsy 1XX/240 and instead consistently record the information in 7XX. Note: on the issue Kevin brings up about the 1XX itself, making this change does not necessarily make using 1XX for the creator unnecessary-that would be a separate discussion. I'd just like to sound people out about the possibility of making 240 obsolete in RDA bibliographic records. This doesn't necessarily mean we would also abandon 1XX altogether. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam Schiff wrote: > 100 1_ Owens, Jo, $d 1961- > 240 10 Add kids, stir briskly > 245 10 Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life / > $c Jo Owens. > > Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required > in an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the work > manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title 246s be > required?: > > 246 30 Add kids, stir briskly > 246 30 How I learned to love my life > > Or would only the second 246 for the alternative title suffice in an > RDA record? Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a *variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific deficiencies. > ** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could be > given: > > 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that "main entry" isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing *manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the expressions/works that are involved.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
