HTML5 game development insights / Colt McAnlis [and 19 others]. (OCLC #870564044)

RDA about recording statements of responsibility naming more than one person allows an optional omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons performing the same function, you may omit any but the first, and summarize your omission.

The LC-PCC PS and NLA PS say to generally not omit names, though the D-A-CH AWR specifically allows it for extensive lists of names. I like the BL-PS, which says to not omit “unless onerous”. I typically do not omit, but made an exception in this (onerous) case:

    245 10 ǂa HTML5 game development insights / ǂc Colt McAnlis
[and 19 others].

The king of desks : Wooton’s patent secretary / by Betty Lawson Walters. (OCLC #49110)

MARC field 019 is used in OCLC for OCLC Control Number Cross-Reference; that is, when two (or more) OCLC records are merged, one OCLC accession number is kept for the record, and the others are put into 019, each into its own ǂa like:

019 __ ǂa 253458412

Records can be merged when a duplicate is accidentally created, such as when a master record is not found for some reason, or when the cataloger did not realize that the differences between descriptions are not sufficient to justify a new record. They can also be merged when cataloging rules change; for example, many older ebook records have 019 fields from when the title was cataloged on multiple records (each specific to one vendor/aggregator), and have since been combined into one provider-neutral record.


Ludus Danielis / Rafaėlʹ Levchin. (OCLC #52873141)

Under AACR2, when elements of the publication statement are not identified, these Latin abbreviations are recorded instead:

  • Place of publication: S.l. – sine loco
  • Publisher’s name: s.n. – sine nomine

There is no phrase for unknown date; one can usually at least guess at the century, like: [19–?]

For this title, some elements are unknown, so this was recorded as:

260 __ ǂa [S.l. : ǂb s.n.], ǂc 2002.

On a catalog card, this would be very clear, as the brackets would clearly surround both, but in an electronic environment where each subfield is separately indexed, the meaning of the brackets is less clear:

  • Place of publication: [S.l
  • Publisher’s name: s.n.]

Under current ISBD rules, each element would each get its own brackets:

[S.l.] : [s.n.], 2002.

In RDA, these concepts are expressed in phrases:

[Place of publication not identified] : [Publisher not identified],
[Date of publication not identified].

though their use is generally not recommended. The LC-PCC PS for RDA says to supply a probably place of publication when possible, and the one for RDA includes a detailed procedure for supplying a probably publication date.


Green woodwork : working with wood the natural way / Mike Abbott ; with a foreword by Richard La Trobe Bateman. (OCLC #27431448)

This volume is a 1991 reprint of a title originally published in 1989. Had I been doing original cataloging for this piece, I would have recorded only the 1989 publication date (like in this record) as printing date does not justify a new record in OCLC. There is a more popular (DLC) record for the reprint itself, indicating a publication with these fields:

DtSt: r      Dates 1991, 1989
260 __ ǂa Lewes, East Sussex : ǂb Guild of Master Craftsman
    Publications ; ǂa New York, N.Y. : ǂb Distributed by
    Sterling Pub., ǂc 1991.
500 __ ǂa Reprint. Originally published: 1989.

The Date: search box only searches the Date1 index (yr:) but not the Date2 index (yy:), so restricting the search to 1989 did not find the DLC record. When I’m not sure how a title has been cataloged but still wish to restrict by date, I use a range:

Date: 1989-1991

Το ξύλο βγήκε απ’ τον παραδεισο (OCLC #810112973)

In the copy I found for this DVD, the title was represented in these linked fields in OCLC:

245 03 ǂa Το ξύλο [beta][gamma]ήκε [alpha][pi]' τον
[pi][alpha]ρ[alpha]́δεισο ǂh [videorecording]. 245 03 ǂa To xylo vgēke ap'ton paradeiso ǂh [videorecording]

In the actual MARC, the latter field would be the “regular” 245 linked using a ǂ6 to the vernacular form of the field in an 880. This appears to be an odd mix of following the LC-PCC PS for RDA 1.4 (Language and Script, section Greek and Other Non-Latin Script Letters, Ideographs, Etc.) and its exception that if a Greek or non-Latin letter appears separately, its name in the primary language should be given in brackets in the primary field, like:

245 10 ǂ6 880-01 ǂa [Alpha]-, [beta]-, and [gamma]-spectroscopy
880 10 ǂ6 245-01/(S ǂa α-, β-, and γ-spectroscopy

(There is a similar instruction in AACR2.)

Given that only a few of the letters were converted, and the change was made in the wrong version of the field (and how many similar results are retrieved by the search “ti: gamma and la: gre”), it looks like somebody’s clean-up script has gone wild.

Be aware of such weirdness when searching for Greek!


Hold the fort; the story of a song from the sawdust trail to the picket line / by Paul J. Scheips. (OCLC #172805)

This piece is about a particular song, so an access point for that title appears as a subject in the record:

600 10 ǂa Bliss, P. P. ǂq (Philip Paul), ǂd 1838-1876.
ǂt Hold the fort.

The free-floating subdivision “History and criticism” is only for use under general literary, music, film, television program, and video recording form headings (not individual titles), so we can use it in an additional heading:

650 _0 ǂa Songs ǂz United States ǂx History and criticism.

Note the difference from the similar-sounding “Criticism and interpretation”, which is for use under people.


This is not my hat / Jon Klassen. (OCLC #779856963)

For last week’s Third Thursday training on Using the RDA Toolkit, we cataloged a book in a non-MARC environment: post-its on posterboard with yarn relationships. It includes all core elements (and some non-core elements that we judged helpful for clarity, selection), taken from appropriate sources of information, and recorded/transcribed according to RDA rules.

(A few elements (like some Identifiers) and relationships (like some Primary Relationships) are recorded on the backs for tidiness.)


Weavers of the Southern Highlands / Philis Alvic. (OCLC #884918404)

RDA 7.15 on Illustrative Content says “If the resource contains illustrative content, record illustration or illustrations, as appropriate.” There is an optional alternative to additionally (or instead) specify the types of illustrations (such as maps, coats of arms, or music) if they are important for identification or selection. The different national libraries have varying policies on this:

  • Library of Congress/PCC: Generally do not be more specific
  • National Library of Australia: Generally do be more specific.
  • British Library: Generally do not, except for maps
  • (I thought DA-C-H said to use your discretion, but don’t see that now)

Our local policy is to record specific types when they seem useful, so in this case I recorded the existence of both general illustrations and maps in the MARC 300 variable field:

300 __ ǂa 1 online resource (xxiv, 234 pages) :
                ǂb illustrations, maps

as well as in the fixed field:

Ills: ab__

Treasures for the table : an exhibition of contemporary table settings, Majolica from Faenza = Tesori per la tavola : una mostra di servizi da tavola contemporanei in Maiolica di Faenza / organized by the Comune di Faenza and Istituto Italiano di Cultura of New York. (OCLC #12786063)

MARC field 041 is language code, which can include information about translation, or languages used for various parts of the resource (table of contents, abstracts, etc.) This piece has the field:

041 0_ ǂa itaeng

summarizing the language information found in this note:

546 __ ǂa Texts in Italian and English.

Including both codes “ita” and “eng” in one subfield is an older convention (made obsolete in 2001), and these days would be coded with repeated subfield a:

041 0_ ǂa ita ǂa eng

The most recent OCLC tech bulletin (264) says that, in their database, all 041 subfields that contain multiple MARC 21 language codes will be converted into separate subfields for each language code.


Cortázar y París : Último round / Izara Batres. (OCLC #879865498)

This book is about another book: Ultimo round / Julio Cortazar. In a FRBR environment, we could link these related works with designators such as described in/description of, but in MARC records, we record this relationship with subject headings:

    600 10 ǂa Cortázar, Julio. ǂt Último round
    600 10 ǂa Cortázar, Julio ǂx Criticism and interpretation.

The free-floating subdivision “Criticism and interpretation” is only for use under people, so we must use both headings to record the criticism aspect and the specific title.

The call number for a commentary on an individual work is constructed by appending ‘3’ to the last cutter in the call number for the original work, in this case:

    PQ7797.C7145 U43 2014