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:

Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:33:51 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

David,

Thanks for your summary and for pointing out other issues. I suspect the best way to do this would indeed be a MARBI proposal to alter the definitions/scopes of 678 and 680. Or do you think it should first go through a PCC committee? I am willing to draft the proposal with the assistance of this list of NACO members if that's okay with everyone.

To respond to some of your other points, I personally never intended to advocate that 680 replace 670/675. I am not sure anyone had that intention who has so far responded, but if anyone does, I am sure they will let us know. And, as I mentioned before, I think adding a 680 should be an option (not mandatory), based on a cataloger's judgment. For both new and edited records. 

I don't think there should be some concerted effort to go back and cull for this information in existing records in any project sort of manner, but just as we encounter them when editing records and feel the 680 would be appropriate, based on whatever guidelines we come up with.

Finally, I think there should indeed be guidelines on what goes in the 680, that it should be for national/international usage and not  info that only applies to specific local situations. Maybe if libraries want to do that, they can add a 680$5 after downloading.

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



----------
From:   David W Reser[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Tuesday, February 08, 2000 10:28 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: 667 vs. 680

Dear Elizabeth and others,

There has been a fruitful discussion on this list of some of the
issues involved in relation to the original question (why don't we use
the 680 field)-- one nice thing about the NACO community is that you
can always get opinions!  Of course, part of managing a project so
large and diverse is trying to achieve consensus before making what
might seem to be fairly minor changes.  

Summarized briefly, here are a few of the issues that have been
raised and would need to be  collaboratively discussed by NACO
participants (including LC and the NACO nodes) to accomplish this
seemingly "simple" change:
1. What is "public" information and what fields in MARC should
contain it?
2.  Repetition of "public" information in an authority record.  
3.  Legacy data in existing authority records that might be
considered "public."
4.  Variations in local systems treatment of displaying "public
information."

LC tries not to make unilateral decisions that affect us all, and
attempts to do so only when consensus cannot be achieved or when the
issues seem overwhelming in relation to the perceived gain.  Although
an electronic mail list might be good for identifying specific issues,
it may not be the best forum for tying down the details.  If it is
considered useful to pursue these issues, a mechanism should be
invoked to perform this review and make recommendations to LC, produce
guidelines (if found necessary), etc., that then can be presented to
participants.

How would such a suggestion/request/recommendation get to the PCC
Policy Committee or Steering Committee for consideration?   I must
confess I've  not kept up with the PCC procedural hierarchy since
leaving Coop-- should this be directed to PoCo through the standing
committees  ( Standards or Automation) or is there a more appropriate
route?    

A more complete, though clearly not exhaustive, discussion of the
four issues follows.  Attempts have been made to identify some of the
questions that need to be answered, and some of the guidelines that
may need to be put in place.

1.  What is "public" information and what fields in MARC should
contain it?

 The USMARC (soon to be published as "MARC 21") Authority Format says
that information in the 680 field "provides general information about
a 1XX heading for which a specialized note field has not been
defined."  Some have noted that they would like to see "biographical
and historical" data, others have identified information in the
"cannot identify with ..." category as candidates for the 680 field.
Of course, there is a special field defined for biographical or
historical data, field 678, although the format suggests that it
should only be used for such information added as part of a manual
file conversion, and fields 670/675 should be used after conversion
(LC did use the 678 field for this purpose during the conversion of
its manual authority file in the late 1970s-early 1980s).  It is
unfortunate that the 680 field is the note field specifically labeled
as "public" note when it also includes the stipulation that it is for
use when "a specialized note field has not been defined"--
particularly when the specialized note field that has been defined is
not often written in a form adequate for public user display. Would
the "field definition and scope" statement for the 680 field need to
be adjusted to remove the stipulation about other specialized notes
taking precedence?  Would changes be necessary for the 678 field as
well, or is it to remain a fact of historical conversion alone?

2.  Repetition of "public" information in an authority record.

 Most likely any biographical and historical data recorded found in a
source would be cited along with the source information in a 670 note,
or may already exist in a 678 note.  Would that information then need
to be reformulated for public consumption and repeated in a 680 field?
 Sometimes, always, never?  Could we come to agreement that the 680
field is not a replacement for the 670/675, etc., just a field to
summarize for the public information found in 670/675?

It's worth recalling that one of the basic tenets of the NACO program
is to defray the cost of creating useful authority records, and one of
the goals of the PCC is to streamline and simplify authority
creation-- would some participants balk at recording the same
information in more than one place in a record, or find consulting an
additional set of guidelines for what type of information should be
recorded publicly or not?  Or might it be possible to leave 680
creation as a totally optional endeavor?  Could we agree collectively
on guidelines for what belongs there?   What is the across-the-board
impact of providing optional data that may be relevant only at the
local library level?

3.  Legacy data in existing authority records that might be
considered "public."
  
The 667 field was originally defined as "Name usage or scope note"
field.  It was redefined in 1991 as "Nonpublic general note." 
Likewise, the 680 field was originally defined only for subject usage
and not defined for use with non-subject authorities until 1991 (and
not officially implemented as a possible name authority field within
NACO until Jan. of 1999), so for the nearly five million records
already in the NACO file, the type of information folks have mentioned
as candidates for 680 fields already exists in various fields (e.g.,
667, 670, 675, 678, and one could argue 663, 664, 665 as well).  What
are the impacts of having this data in one place in some records and
elsewhere in others?   Would we expect those who edit earlier records
to move applicable data to new fields?

4.  What is a "public field" vs. non-public information?  Although we
do have the label of "public" on the 680, it is impossible to predict
from one local system to the next what is displayed to the public and
what is not.  In LC's old system, in fact, everything was displayed to
the public, including 667s, reference tracings with $w values for
non-display, and even a locally-defined "confidential information"
field!  It will likely be that way again before the end of the year,
in response to those outside of LC who have complained about losing
the access they once had).  Do our local systems all work the same in
this regard?  Would we even want them to, or do we prefer to make
institutional decisions on what is displayed to the public?  For
example, given the past history of the 680 field, how many of our
systems force a display legend such as "Scope note: ..." when
displaying 680 information?  Would such a legend be applicable to
non-subject uses of this field?  As a colleague said recently in the
email barrage about obsolete indicators in authority records: "this is
a good illustration of the difficulties involved in the management of
changes that affect a large number of records ... within the kind of
national and international networks that constitute the current
environment ... and do them in a manner that synchronizes all the
various interests to be served."

Dave Reser
CPSO

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

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