Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Would they also send back a record with a 240 with the original title plus a
language for a translation when the original title doesn't appear on the
resource? If you're gonna code a record as RDA, then I think you need to
adhere to the standard. Especially when contributing a record to a shared
database. What one does in ones local catalog is completely different, but
we would not be happy to find copy with the practice you're suggesting, Mac.
We would instruct catalogers here to upgrade the record to the standard.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:18 AM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation
you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title
(or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed.
I would substitute according to present rules you would for have
to above.
Our small library clients would send that record back to us saying the
240 does not appear on the item. The chance of any of them having the
two is very slim, so no need for the 240 to being them together. They
will accept a 246 1 $iOriginally issued as:$a, so that anyone
searching by the original title will find it. Field 246 is indexed in
more ILS than 240. due to the large number of form 240s useless for
access.
Rules are a means to and end, not an end in themselves.
I agree that no relationship designator is appropriate. No 700
duplicating the 100 is needed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Adam said:
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred
title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation
you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title
(or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed.
I would substitute according to present rules you would for have
to above.
Our small library clients would send that record back to us saying the
240 does not appear on the item. The chance of any of them having the
two is very slim, so no need for the 240 to being them together. They
will accept a 246 1 $iOriginally issued as:$a, so that anyone
searching by the original title will find it. Field 246 is indexed in
more ILS than 240. due to the large number of form 240s useless for
access.
Rules are a means to and end, not an end in themselves.
I agree that no relationship designator is appropriate. No 700
duplicating the 100 is needed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
Ann Ryan asked:
What relationship designator are people using for retitled works?
We KISS, e.g.:
246 3 $iOriginally published as:$aTeach yourself instant French.
There is not need for a second entry under the same author.
I do miss 503. Our records are becoming too complex.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work
If it is the same work, then you have to decide what the preferred title of the work is, and if it is not the same as the manifestation you have in hand, then you would add a 240 for the preferred title (or 130 if no creator(s)). No relationship designator is needed. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Ann Ryan wrote: Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:25:55 +1300 From: Ann Ryan a...@wheelers.co.nz To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a retitled work What relationship designator are people using for retitled works? This is one of the most common relationships that we deal with: Originally published as: The book in hand: Traveller's French by Elisabeth Smith. London : Hodder Stoughton, 2013. Originally published as: Teach yourself instant French. Great Britain. Hodder Education, 1998. 9781444193046 Looking at appendix J in the RDA toolkit - I'm unable to find any relationship designator which seems to reflect this relationship accurately. I've added the Author/title added entry (as usual), but am really struggling with finding/adding an i subfield to reflect the relationship between the two works. What are other people using in this situation? Regards Ann Ann Ryan Cataloguer Wheelers Auckland, NZ a...@wheelers.co.nz ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
