LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  August 1998

PCCLIST August 1998

Subject:

856 Fields in NARs

From:

John Riemer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:04:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (122 lines)

At ALA this past June MARBI gave final approval to extending use of the
856 field to authority records, and the corresponding revisions to the
USMARC format documentation are due to appear next month.  It is now up
to specific groups such as the PCC to make decisions on the situations
in which the field will be used in authority records.

Like the single-record technique for noting the existence of Internet
equivalents on bibliographic records for print titles, this is another
potential labor-saving technique that can be added to the cataloger's
repertoire.  In practical terms, we catalogers are expected to keep up
with all the print-title cataloging customarily on our plates, plus take
on electronic resources so that we stay relevant in the information
community, all with no additional staff.

In theoretical terms, when the definition of seriality is undergoing
reexamination, it may make sense to bypass entirely the choice between a
serial or monograph workform for an organization's web site.  If that
site has been designed to represent the body as a whole, if it leads to
many or all of the body's publications, one could equate the site to a
corporate author and then reasonably and simply add the corresponding
856 field to the authority record.  In treating the site as yet another
work by (and about) the body, the more time-consuming-to-create
bibliographic record may contain an empty title proper like "Welcome to
the [name of organization]."  The Library of Congress home page
(http://lcweb.loc.gov) has had several different title-screen titles,
while the URL has remained constant.

It might seem at first thought that bibliographic records are better
equipped than authority records to provide a subject approach to
corporate web sites.  For many organizational web sites, the primary
(only) subject heading on a bibliographic record would be the name of
the body itself, something already contained in the 1XX field of the
authority record.

On the occasions that an additional, topical heading is warranted, e.g.
a subject heading reflecting the body's area of activity, this could be
provided for in a bibliographic record, so long as that topic is
reported on in the work cataloged.  Regardless of the presence of an 856
field in a name authority record, nothing would preclude institutions
from subsequently using a bibliographic record for the same web site,
should they desire.  This would be no more redundant or objectionable
than the coexistence of a serial bibliographic record and a series
authority record for the same entity.

URLs might become outdated, but if they are sitting in the same 856
fields as in bibliographic records, then the same link-maintenance
software can operate on URLs in both sets of records.  Since
organizations pay money to reserve fairly mnemonic domain names, the
URLs in authority records may have greater stability.  The inclusion of
more volatile and lengthly URLs in bibliographic records has not been
seriously questioned.

Opening authority records to the 856 field will not increase the amount
of time required by a cataloger to establish a heading.  The 053 field
is instructive here: to establish a personal author, one is not required
to search to see if that field is applicable.  Typically it is another
cataloger, aware of the relationship to the classification schedule, who
comes along later to add that field.  Likewise with the 856: one would
not be required to search for corporate web sites as part of
establishing a corporate heading.

Mapping relationships is an appropriate role for authority records.
Just as the 053 field in a personal name authority record provides users
with the beginning portion of all the literary author's LC-based call
numbers, the 856 fields on many corporate authority records will
indicate the initial segment of all the hierarchically-based URLs
associated with the body.  The same principle governing inclusion of 053
fields in subject authority records, namely the existence of a one-to-
one relationship, can guide the addition of URLs to authority records.

The subfield $3 could be used in 856 fields to point to supplementary
material about the body, such as historical information or the latest
mission statement for the body.  Such access may be more efficient and
cost-effective than selecting and inputting excerpts of the same data
into the authority record's 678 field.  If a library, faced with
organizing large numbers of corporate annual reports (in electronic
form), is already to the point of cataloging at minimal level, a great
deal of time could be saved by adding URLs to the corporate authority
records, preceded by "annual report" as a mere genre-like term in a
subfield $3.

At least one library is already including URLs in its OPAC display of
authority records (Charleston County Library Catalog and Databases
<URL: http://www.ccpl.org/MARION>).  An author browse search on
"Charleston (S.C.)" produces a web display featuring clickable headings
that can take a user to the bibliographic records totalled to the right
of those headings.  Sandwiched between a heading and the number of hits
is the parenthesized word "about"; when clicked, the resulting public
display of the authority record includes the URL for the body's web
site, labelled "Electronic Access:" near the top of the screen.

While these bibliographic control techniques, including use of subfield
$3 and the 856's repeatability, are theoretically applicable in all
types of authority records, I am proposing that we adopt their use
within NACO, primarily for corporate names.  Some examples:

110 20  Library of Congress. $b Copyright Office            (n79-117971)
856 4_  $u http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright

111 20  International Conference on the Principles and Future
Development of AACR
856 4_  $u http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/

A secondary priority would be application of this technique to
professors' personal web pages and portraits of famous people.

This expanded use of authority records opens up a lot of exciting
possibilities for extending the reach of traditional bibliographic
control efforts, simultaneously increasing the convenience of the
cataloger and improving the value of the authority record.

Is there any reason why the PCC should not adopt usage of the 856 field
in daily NACO work?

John J. Riemer
Assistant Head of Cataloging
University of Georgia Libraries
Athens, GA  30602
(706)542-0591
(706)542-4144fax
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager