Elizabeth and others,
If a MARBI proposal to change the definitions/scopes of 678 and
680 fields is contemplated, I think you also need to keep in mind the
scope of the authority format. It does not apply just to the National
Authority File or even just to name authority records. It also
applies to subject authority records and can be used by such diverse
subject heading lists and thesauri as LCSH, MeSH, AAT, and others.
Therefore, the definitions in the format need to be kept at a general
level. Each specific user of the format can formulate its own
guidelines for applying those fields within the general definitions.
For example, in the Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings,
LC has guidelines for the type of information that is included in
scope notes in 680 fields for LCSH and the standard wording that is
used. Since the 667 field was only implemented for subjects within
LC's legacy authority system last year, we have not yet fully come to
terms with what information about subject headings belongs in 667
fields vs. 680 fields. Last spring we began to use the 667 field in
limited situations, one of which is to add information to geographic
subject headings that belong to certain categories that the heading is
not valid for use as a geographic subdivision.
Senior Cataloging Policy Specialist
LC Cataloging Policy and Support Office
>>> Elizabeth Robinson <[log in to unmask]> 02/08 4:33 PM >>>
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
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
[log in to unmask]