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  February 2000

PCCLIST February 2000

Subject:

Re: 667 vs. 680

From:

Sherman Clarke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:28:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

Joan,
I think Ralph Papakhian's note had a perfect example of a really
public note. The 680 could be used to provide a brief biographical
summary that could be displayed in the opac if you wanted (and your
system allowed it), for example: Bernstein, Leonard, 1918-  Composer,
conductor, and pianist. Dates: 1918-1990

The 670s and 675s give the information in shorthand and not
necessarily in a single source.

Sherman Clarke, NYU - [log in to unmask]

> Date:          Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:29:46 -0500
> Reply-to:      Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> From:          Joan C Biella <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:       Re: 667 vs. 680
> To:            [log in to unmask]

> I am confused by the direction this discussion is taking, and I DO
> understand A. Franks's point, which seems to me to be that most (if
> not all?) relevant information can be put into public notes, that is,
> 670s and 675s.  Most information does have a source, which can be
> cited--"Info from author's sister, date$b(Jane Blow is widow of Joe
> Blow)"--and doesn't usually arise from the cataloger communing with
> him/herself.  The only truly "private" notes I've run across as a
> Library of Congress cataloger have been on the order of:  "author's
> year of birth  XXXX; do not make this information public until 50
> years after author's death" (I really ran across one like that).  What
> kind of truly "non-public" information are we talking about?
>
> Joan Biella
> Library of Congress
> NOT an official statement
>
> >>> Mark Scharff <[log in to unmask]> 02/03 10:24 AM >>>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Anthony R. Franks wrote:
>
> > As a purely personal matter of opinion, and not at all reflecting
> the
> > position of the Library of Congress on this matter, I will share
> with you
> > the thought that struck me this morning, in the shower:
> >
> > If information is relevant to the heading, it goes into a 670
> field; if
> > it's not relevant to the heading, it goes into a 675 field.
>
> Uh ... both of these fields are non-public notes, and I think that
> the
> discussion has migrated away from converting non-public *fields* to
> public
> fields, to putting certain kinds of information (beyond death dates,
> not
> yet clearly defined in the discussion) in a public field instead of
> or in
> addition to a non-public field.  The point of Anthony's statement is
> lost
> on me, and I welcome an explanation from someone more clever than I
> (don't hurt yourselves in the mad rush! :-)).
>
> > To paraphrase Judy Kuhagen speaking about another NAR-related
> matter,
> > introducing yet another field and set of tagging into NAR
> production is
> > not cataloging simplification.
> >
>
> Again, depending on what sorts of information are assigned to a
> public
> note, we may not be talking about adding anything to NAR
> *production*,
> that is, the initial creation of an authority record.  If the
> principal
> use is one of recording death dates, that's a post-creation task that
> need
> not involve the NAR creator at all.  If the contents extend to
> descriptors, statements of function, etc., that might be another
> matter;
> even at that, it would be unlikely that there would be a perceived
> need to
> provide this for every heading.
>
> Understanding that Anthony was speaking for himself, I hear his
> comments
> reflect what seems to be a common LC attitude toward the cooperative
> projects: a reluctance to allow participants to do something that LC
> itself does not want to do.  This was true in the NACO Music Project
> when
> participants wanted to create authority records for name-title
> headings
> that didn't require cross-references; because this ran counter to LC
> practice, it took no little amount of persuading to get LC to allow
> it
> from NMP participants.  LC eventually changed course with their
> OCLC MDAR project, creating thousands of such records themselves
> because
> it finally suited their purposes.
>
> I hope there will be more discussion of this idea among various
> constituencies, with some input from those who deal with catalog
> users and
> are in a position to know what impact adding public information
> about
> death dates and the like would have on catalog use.  Then we can
> worry
> about what impact it might have on catalog creation and maintenance.
>
> There's been little discussion thus far about displaying this
> information.
> If this idea does gain some momentum, vendors should be put on notice
> that
> their customers expect them to provide for display.  Some vendors
> can't or
> won't display public fields that are already present.
>
> OK -- enough rabble-rousing for one message.
>
> Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
> Gaylord Music Library
> Washington University in St. Louis
> [log in to unmask]
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager