To repeat what Kevin said in a different way: The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship between the resource and the work that is in it.
If the preferred title of the work (6.2.2) is exactly the same as the title proper of the manifestation (2.3.2), then the combination of 1XX + 245 subfield $a suffices to record the relationship between the resource and the work in the resource and 240 is not necessary. But that apparently isn't true in this case. I confess I agree that 1XX/240 has always been a cockeyed way of doing this (RDA is no different from AACR2 on this coding) and I'd much rather we always coded the authorized access point for the work contained in the resource in 7XX (with second indicator 2), but unfortunately that isn't the current practice. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles 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. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
