[DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

[Robert Maxwell]

Not that I know, but use your judgment on that one I’d say.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
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: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:07 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

Bob, does it make any difference if one of the works takes up most of the volume?

Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:00 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

By the way, the current practice, in PCC at least, is to use 1XX/240 or 130 if there is only one work or expression described for the authorized access point for the work or expression, but instead to use 7XXs if there are more than one (each of which contains the authorized access point for a work or expression). So in this case, if following the current practice, there would be a 700 for the AAP for Sermones de temore and a second 700 field for the AAP for Sermones de sanctis rather than a 100/240 and a 700.

This was a change in practice that coincided with the implementation of RDA but I don’t think it really has anything much to do with RDA—RDA doesn’t really care how authorized access points are recorded in MARC bibliographic records, just so long as they’re recorded.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
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: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:52 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

It turned out to be a simple error. There are separate work APs for Sermones de tempore and Sermones de sanctis. The cataloger used the wrong 240 (it should be--and will be--for the first work de tempore) and of course got the case wrong (sanctus for sanctis) in the 700. My own Latinity is a limping thing (which can make expansions a trial) so I'm inclined to forgiveness.

I would be reluctant to encourage deletion of all $5 notes, if only because in some cases I have based a note, usually concerning a variant within the bounds of the manifestation, on my institution's copy. Perhaps I should just regard these as general notes (as they actually are) and omit the subfield, as I do when I've had access to digitized copies that exemplify the variants.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Gemberling, Ted P <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
I’m not sure what that’s about. I know some people want to eliminate the 240 in favor of the 700 $t because the 700 is often more controllable. Maybe the cataloger wanted to “cover both bases,” as the saying goes. I’ve seen debates about 700 vs. 240 on the PCC list and wasn’t sure what to think about the issue.

I agree with Deborah on removing copy-specific information.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161027/941092c3/attachment-0001.html>