Mac Elrod wrote:
> Kevin said:
>
> >In this case under discussion, there IS a difference between the
> >manifestation and the preferred title of the work, so 240 should be >
> used.
>
>
> The function of a 240 is to unite manifestions of works/expressions
> with differingn titles. If this is the only manifestation, we would
> not use 240.
>
> My attitude may be influenced by many of our clients' distaste for
> 240s (apart from Shealespeare and music), as not being on the item, so
> misleading in brief display when seen first rather than 245.
No, the function of the 240 (in RDA records) is to give the name of the work,
if that name is different from the title proper in the 245 field.
The problem we have is that for the time being we're stuck with a data
structure that was designed for printing catalog cards. The technology of card
catalogs is very, very different from entity-relationship modeling, which is
the main way we conceive of data in bibliographic databases. For filing
purposes, MARC 245 is expected to be the "established" form of the title if:
- there is no 1XX field, OR
- there is a 1XX field but NOT a 240 field.
MARC 245 is expected to be just a variant access point if:
- there is a 1XX field, AND
- there is a 240 field.
There is no way that 245 can be BOTH the name of the work AND the title proper
of the manifestation if there is a difference between the two.
Actually, I think we should consider ourselves lucky we've been able to keep
MARC working as well as it does for us, seeing how much we're expecting the
data to do, beyond what was expected close to half a century ago.
In order to have the data migrate cleanly to a format that's more RDA-friendly,
the 240 field is essential in a case like this. If your clients have
"distaste" for the 240 field, I question how well they understand or care how
bibliographic data works.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
