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:

Elizabeth Robinson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:54:57 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

Speaking for myself, my attraction to the 680 as a public note is that it can be written in plain language and summarize select information you may want to bring out without having to display all that is in the 670s. E.g. say you have the following pair of NARs (which are real, BTW):

 040     CSmH|cCSmH
 100  10 Allen, Hannah
 400  10 Allen, Hanna
 670     The humble answer of the General Councel of officers of the Army, under His Excellencie, Thomas, Lord Fairfax, 1648:|bimprint on t.p. (Hannah Allen; Crowne in Popes-head Alley) 
670     The Kentish petition: to the Honourable, the Commons now sitting in Parliament, 1648:|bimprint on t.p. (Hanna Allen; Crown in Popes head Alley)
 670     Plomer, H. Dict. of the booksellers and printers ... 1641 to 1667, 1907|b(Allen, Hannah, bookseller in London; widow of Benjamin Allen; Crown in Pope's Head Alley, 1647-50; last recorded work in Registers is 1650; later married Livewell Chapman)


  07 040     CSmH|cCSmH
 08 100  10 Allen, Benjamin,|dd. 1646
 09 400  10 Allen, Ben.|q(Benjamin),|dd. 1646
 10 670     Greenhill, W. Axin{229}e pros t{229}en rhizan, 1643:|bimprint on t.p. (Benjamin Allen; Popes-head Alley)
 11 670     Lockyer, N. England faithfully watcht with, in her wounds, 1646: |bimprint on t.p. (Ben. Allen; Crown in Popes-head Alley)
 12 670     Plomer, H. Dict. of the booksellers and printers ... 1641 to 1667, 1907|b(Allen, Benjamin, bookseller and printer in London; 1. the Crown, Popes-Head Alley, 1631-46; took up freedom Jan 12 1631; will dated and proved May 1646)


Yes, you could display all these notes to your public, but with a 680 on each, you can display to the public very succinctly select information you may feel is clarifying:

100 1_ Allen, Hannah
680 __ Bookseller; widow of Benjamin Allen (d. 1646)


and

100 1_ Allen, Benjamin, |dd. 1646
680 __ Bookseller and printer; succeed by his wife Hannah Allen


I'm not suggesting one be required to do this all the time, just per cataloger's judgment -- when you want to make an association between different people or want to bring out the occupation of the person (esp. if the 670s don't make that clear or if you have people with the same or similar name operating in close time periods but who have different occupations). Yes, it is a repetition of info in the 670, but I believe it could be a quick public service aid for both patrons and staff.

--Elizabeth A. Robinson
  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
  Huntington Library
  [log in to unmask]




----------
From:   Joan C Biella[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:29 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: 667 vs. 680

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