Belated thanks for the answers on my 347 question. It's incredibly helpful to hear what colleagues are doing. I've incorporated the 347 into our local RDA records as appropriate & am making sure it gets into the records going into OCLC.
I'm looking for a brief explanation (or a point to current documentation) describing when one would use a 240 vs. 775. My understanding per the LC Special Topics PowerPoint I had read on "Revised editions of monographs" was that in the case of a revised edition with a new title, the works were related optionally via a 775 but only after a 240 uniform title was added to the record. That training seemed to indicate that the 240 was required and the 775 was purely optional. Is this still the current thinking/training? I'm seeing training that seems to emphasize the 77x fields but rarely mentions the 130/240 fields in this context of new editions with title changes. Is that because the use of the 130/240 fields are understood? Doing both seems a bit redundant to me. When would you & why, apply a 775 relator field? Would this be in addition to the 240? I'm working on records for joint doctrine & am trying to explain to my staff how to relate these records for succeeding editions with title changes. Any suggestions? //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
