My thanks for Bob's and others' thoughtful comments regarding my
question about what goes into the 1xx field when using RDA. You
support what I've instinctively been doing but was uncertain as
to where to turn for the specific RDA instruction. This is
where RDA 18.3 is particularly useful.
Bob articulated my concerns about disconnects between MARC and
RDA with regard to the 1xx and 240 fields so much better than I
did. AACR2 and MARC grew up together so it's no big surprise
that MARC is so AACR2-centric. MARBI has worked long and hard,
bringing MARC in line with RDA but it's a complex process and the
pieces don't always fit together cleanly. During the testing
of RDA, the Dominican students participating in the
test seriously considered not using the 1xx fields at all but 7xx
fields instead in order to bring the test records more in line
with the concepts found in RDA (that is, not designating any
one person, family, or corporate body as the "main entry"). In
the end, we didn't do this but it did tickle the backs of our minds.
I suspect we are going to have to wait until there is a
replacement for MARC before an authorized access point is an
authorized access point is an authorized access point and we no
longer identify one of them as the main entry. The tickle in the
back of my mind about using only the 7xx fields for persons,
family, or corporate body access points when creating RDA records
is inching closer to the front of my mind, however.
Thank you again.
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)
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Robert Maxwell <mailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu>
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
*Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 11:31 AM
*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
*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 UniversityGraduate School of Library and
Information Science
7900 W. Division St.
River Forest, IL 60305
USA
1-773-878-4008
1-773-519-4009 (mobile)
