Those points are well reflected in the sample RDA & MARC records from the RDA Toolkit:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf The authorized access point for the Work Manifested is always listed as having "no equivalent coding in MARC21" in the RDA examples. But in what appears to be a stopgap measure, the 130 and 240 fields are used as before in the MARC examples to carry the data for the authorized access point for the work. As well, the 100 field is construed to be both the placeholder for a creator relationship to the work (emphasized with added work-level relationship designators, such as "author") and the first part of what has become the authorized access point for the work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: July 30, 2012 12:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? I agree with the spirit of Marjorie's question, especially the part about keeping one foot on either side of the fence. It is true that we have had no official word on continued use of 1XX fields, by which I mean the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html instructions for 1XX have not been revised to take RDA into account. (There have been plenty of training materials prepared making use of 1XX.) But the MARC formats still refer to 1XX as "main entry" fields, which, as Marjorie points out, is not appropriate in an RDA context. Since AACR2 is still being used in bibliographic records it would be inappropriate to make this designation obsolete, but updating is needed to allow for RDA, if RDA is going to continue to use 1XX fields in MARC bibliographic records. RDA does not have the concept of main entry, but RDA 18.3 still makes a distinction between the "creator having principal responsibility named first" and other creators (e.g. co-authors, etc.). So long as that distinction exists in the guidelines some way is needed to show it in bibliographic records, and it makes logical sense to me that 100, 110, and 111 should be used for the "creator having principal responsibility named first" and 700 for other creators. I recommend that MARC be revised to clarify this. So far so good for 100, 110, and 111. But there is nothing in RDA corresponding to 130, "Main Entry-Uniform Title". An AACR2 uniform title is roughly equivalent to an authorized access point for a work or expression in RDA, representing a work or expression, not a person, family, or corporate body. A work is one of the first group of FRBR entities, "the products of intellectual or artistic endeavor". Persons, families, or corporate bodies are in the second group, "those entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content (etc.)" of works, expressions, manifestations, or items. In the context of a work, the second group are creators. So, given RDA's distinction between principal and other creators, which I suggest in the previous paragraph could continue to use the 1XX/7XX distinction in MARC, 100 is appropriate for persons and families, and 110, and 111 are appropriate for corporate bodies, when they are the principal creator. But 130 does not correspond to any RDA concept. A work (a FRBR group 1 entity) is not a creator (a FRBR group 2 entity), and so cannot be the principal creator of itself. So in my opinion 130 should not be used in RDA. All authorized access points for works or expressions related to the resource described in the bibliographic record (including the work/expression embodied in the manifestation) should be recorded in 7XX. 130 happens to be where we record in MARC an AACR2 uniform title for a work that does not have a creator expressed within the uniform title, either because the work is anonymous, because (under AACR2) the work had more than three creators, or because the work is an aggregate work (a compilation of works by different creators). X30 corresponds to an authorized access point for a work in RDA based on preferred title alone (i.e., not combined with the authorized access point for a creator, see the guidelines in RDA 6.27). If my argument about 130 being inappropriate in an RDA record makes any sense, then it also applies to the 1XX + 240 combination, which is the main entry in AACR2 for an AACR2 uniform title that does happen to have an expressed creator. 240 cannot exist independently of 1XX, so the two combined really represent a single access point string. In RDA terms, if used, 1XX + 240 would represent the authorized access point for a work or expression, not for a person, family, or corporate body. If we think that 1XX should be used in RDA to represent the principal creator, then, again, a work cannot be the principal creator of itself. So in addition to 130, I also think 1XX/240 should not be used in RDA, but instead all authorized access points for works and expressions related to the resource (including the work/expression embodied in the manifestation) should be coded in 7XX. When we began creating RDA bibliographic records in RDA during the test this was my practice-not to use 130 or 240. About a year later I was informed by the MARC folks at LC (as well as in the context of ECIP cataloging) that this wasn't "correct" and so I have returned to the AACR2 MARC practice, but I am very uncomfortable with it and would welcome having this issue reopened and discussed. I don't think coding an authorized access point for a work in 1XX makes sense in an RDA context. So thank you, Marjorie, for asking the question! Note: on Marjorie's comment about editors in RDA 19.2.1.1, they are not identified there as potential creators. Editors are identified there as potential contributors to an expression. I do not see any justification for recording them as principal creator in an RDA record. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Marjorie Bloss Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? Dear Colleagues: I would like to raise a question that points out our standing with one foot on the AACR2 side of the fence and the other on the RDA side of the fence. I was wondering how institutions are resolving the issue of what goes into the MARC 100 and 110 fields when using RDA? As you know, AACR2's concept of "main entry" (see AACR2 21.1A-21.1C) and "added entry" (see AACR2 21.29+) do not exist in RDA. The MARC 100 and 110 fields however are main entry-based, reflecting many years of AACR2 practice. When using RDA, how do you plan to determine what goes in the 100 and 110 fields of the MARC record? On what RDA instructions is your decision based? Is it the first name (the creator -- personal, family, or corporate) in a statement of responsibility? What about editors? RDA in 19.2.1.1 identifies editors as potential creators. How might this affect what goes into a 100 field? Mac Elrod has kindly shared his "cheat sheets" with us that address this issue. In them, he seems to support the concept of using the 700 and 710 fields more frequently for "main entry" personal and corporate names while setting the first indicator in the 245 at 0. (Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this.) Is this what others plan to do? Cordially, Marjorie Marjorie E. Bloss, Adjunct Faculty Dominican University Graduate School of Library and Information Science 7900 W. Division St. River Forest, IL 60305 USA 1-773-878-4008 1-773-519-4009 (mobile)
