What may be adding to the apparent confusion about the impact of all this is that the LC-PCC PS on Chapter 17 says "Do not apply chapter 17 in the current implementation scenario." I'm surprised no one else has pointed that out yet.
Kai On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:02:22 +0000, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxw...@byu.edu> wrote: > 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/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ -- Kai Stoeckenius 250 Moffitt Library, #33 University of California, Berkeley.
