[yul-naco] FW: redundant field 240?

[Arakawa, Steven]

Here’s a change I overlooked when I sent out the recent summary of April 2014 changes. This also applies to works, i.e. contained in (work)/container of (work) WAS: contained in (work)/contains (work)
See RDA J.2.4
PS: locally, we would not add $s

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu<mailto:steven.arakawa at yale.edu>



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 5:58 PM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: redundant field 240?

“contains (expression)” was found, until April 2014, in Appendix J.3.4 as a relationship designator for a whole-part expression relationship. Unfortunately (in my opinion), this designator was changed last month to “container of (expression)”. And since it was added as a fast-track change there isn’t even any history showing what it used to be.

Pre-2014:

70002  $i Contains (expression): Zareʼa Yaʻeqob, ǂc Negus of Ethiopia, ǂd approximately 1399-1468. ǂt Homily on the rite of baptism and religious instruction. ǂl English ǂs (Getatchew Haile)

Post-2014:

70002 $i Container of (expression): Zareʼa Yaʻeqob, ǂc Negus of Ethiopia, ǂd approximately 1399-1468. ǂt Homily on the rite of baptism and religious instruction. ǂl English ǂs (Getatchew Haile)

“Contains …” I understand. “Container of …” makes no sense at all to me in this context. And if it doesn’t make any sense to a librarian steeped in RDA, can we expect any library user to understand what relationship the designator is supposed to convey?

So much as I hate to say it (I am as you all probably know a big promoter of relationship designators) I probably won’t be using that one in bibliographic records but will be relying on the “_2” coding in the 7XX field to convey the relationship. However, there is unfortunately no choice if anybody wants to bring out this relationship in an authority record so I guess I’ll have to grit my teeth and use it there. (This isn’t the only 2014 change in the relationship designators that seems bizarre to me.)


Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
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: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:59 PM
To: PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov<mailto:PCCLIST at listserv.loc.gov>
Subject: Re: redundant field 240?

Thanks to whoever at BYU has quickly restored the 700 fields that Charles Croissant said were missing from OCLC 853452562 (and removed the 240).  Further questions remain as to (1) whether subfield i was omitted from these fields as an option decision or as a matter of policy, and (2) where the phrase "contains (expression)" is documented.

A word of caution.  It's easy, when working with this record, to overlook that it describes a two-volume set.  If like me you have only one volume in hand, you might wind up deleting fields that should remain in the master record.  And if you then replace the master record, you'll degrade the quality of the cataloging.  Anyone wishing to describe just volume  1 can use OCLC 9789042927520; for volume 2, 853444030 is available.  Both can use a little further work.

Sincerely - Ian
Ian Fairclough
George Mason University
ifairclo at gmu.edu<mailto:ifairclo at gmu.edu>
ifairclough43302 at gmail.com<mailto:ifairclough43302 at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/yul-naco/attachments/20140508/e857d085/attachment.html