The 765 field is generally used to link *separate resources* that are specific manifestations containing different language expressions of the same work. In the case of a Loeb edition, there isn't really another specific manifestation that this is related to-i.e., considered a translation of (or translated as). It's all contained in one book.
Theoretically, with 765, you could put ALL the system control numbers of ALL the other language editions into one or more fields (e.g., all the OCLC numbers for all the English editions in one field, all the OCLC numbers for all the Latin editions in another field, etc.), but I think that just serves to show how limited the MARC format really is. Translation relationships are really expression and work relationships; in a FRBR-rich environment, linking a manifestation to one particular language expression will automatically link it up with all of the other language expressions of that same work. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [RDA-L] 765 note again ((not-quite-so) hypothetical) Please forgive the duplication, but I think this question is relevant to all three lists. It seems to be the consensus that under RDA, when one has a translation, one should not only indicate this in terms of the preferred title (130 or 240), but also by the addition of a 765 field, in MARC. In the case of publications, such as the Loeb Classical Library, where there is both the original language and a translation, it is now considered best practice to omit the 240, and instead have two preferred titles in separate 7XX fields, one for the original language expression, one for the translation. In this case, would you also have an additional 765 essentially duplicating the 7XX for the original language? It seems to me that this would be the logical conclusion. Just how is it envisioned that all these fields will be used? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
