Hugh & others,
I don't believe there was "a lot" of discussion about implementing
the 781 for NAF work (a least not on the list). The notice went out
and it nearly slipped past me. In fact I have trouble remembering
to add it to the authority records. The SACO Web form reminds me,
but I don't have a similar reminder for NAF work.
Hugh ... Thanks for the reminder. I can't tell you have useful I
find them when working on catalog maintenance.
Is there any reason that we can't add 781's in the course of our
work? Is there a project in mind or can we just add as we work with
--On Tuesday, June 01, 2004 5:53 PM +0100 Hugh Taylor
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Can I appeal to the collective NACO/SACO memory/knowledge.
> For NACO contributors, field 781 is currently marked as
> "optional" (DCM Z1). As the LC guidelines for MARC 21 Authority
> Format put it:
> "NACO participants may, at their own discretion, provide a 781
> field in Name authority records for geographic headings (151)
> when creating them for the NACO authority file."
> In those same guidelines, LC practice for names/series is marked
> simply and unambiguously: "Do not use this field."
> Conversely, 781 is a mandatory part of a SACO proposal.
> I'm less interested in the discrepancy between use of 781 for
> names and subjects than in the current state of affairs for US
> What I can't remember is how and/or why this field, when it first
> started to be employed in US NAF, was permitted to be optional
> for NACO and seems never to have been implemented internally
> within LC. I'm sure there was some discussion, but it's
> completely gone from my memory. The provision of 781s in all
> appropriate authority records would seem to me to be such a
> fundamental step along the (admittedly long) path towards more
> complete authority control of headings in our bibliographic
> records, that making its inclusion in all new geographic
> authority records would seem to be a no-brainer. And yet we don't
> do it. There must be a reason.
> I should add, to anticipate those who might suggest there's "no
> point because there's all those existing NARs which don't have
> it", that automating the provision of 781s in the majority of
> these existing geographic NARs, whilst a major project (not least
> in the redistribution of so many records), is by no means
> impractical or impossible. In any case, populating *new* records
> is surely the essential first step in this process; devising a
> plan to deal with the backfile can follow later.
> So, first things first. Why is 781 optional for NACO
> participants? Anyone remember the discussions on this?
> Only when we have a reasonable amount of data can we hope to
> persuade our ILS vendors to develop the functionality to employ
> effectively that data. Remember subfield v?
> Hugh Taylor
> Head, Collection Development and Description
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
> email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
Mary Charles Lasater
Email: [log in to unmask]