So, okay, here’s another puzzle for the catalogers.
A 700 (or 7xx in general) could be an ‘analytic’, representing one element that’s the contents of the item cataloged. OR could just represent a contributor (who isn’t ‘main entry’) to the work. An ‘analytic’ will mention the particular part of the work contained, generally in controlled form.
Now, I want to treat this differently depending on if it’s an analytic or not. For instance, just plain contributor names should be listed as ‘contributors’, along with links to collocate on controlled form of name. But if it’s an analytic, I STILL want to seperate out the person’s actual name as ‘contributor’ (and let you collocate in general just by their name). But I ALSO say what part of the work they contributed, and give a link to look up other records for that analytic entry (the part).
So 7xx field have second indicator two. Which oddly gives you two possibilities. You can note that it definitely is an analytic entry. Or you can note that you don’t know either way. Very strangely there is no way to even note that you definitely know it’s not! Second indicator blank just means “no information.” So it might still be an analytic.
Of course, even if the indicators gave you a way to record that it definitely wasn’t, no doubt we’d still have plenty of records whose second indicator gave no information.
So…. how can I tell if a 7xx is an ‘analytic’ or not? Can I assume that it’s an analytic if and only if subfield t is present? Are there any cases where it is an analytic but there’s no subfield t, or where it’s not an analytic but there is a subfield t?
The 730 field specifically is even worse. I don’t know if there’s any way for me to tell if it’s an analytic or not? I mean, if second indicator is 2, it is. And if second indicator is blank… absolutely no way to tell.
What the heck could a 730 be other than an analytic? Anyone have examples?