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

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
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