Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> I am in complete agreement with Richard, and pronounce anathema on
> undifferentiated name headings.
Ted Gemberling wrote:
> I don't understand the aversion to undifferentiated headings. They
> essentially provide a place for careful catalogers to record and share
> information about author identities, in hope of eventually creating
> differentiated headings for them... If there's a plethora of authors
> with |c qualifications related to subject or occupation,
> it seems it could be a big mess, with a lot of potential
> bib file maintenance if the differentiations are found to
> be incorrect.
I agree with both Deborah and Ted. Undifferentiated name headings should be avoided---as should Differentiated name headings that are name only just because no other name authority record has been established yet--but at the same time it is creating a mess to use occupation or fields of activity in subfield $c.
Stephen Hearn supplied the correct solution. In the bib heading, use subfield $0 for the appropriate authority control number. New fields defined in the authority record should be used to supply the occupation (374) and field of activity (372). We should not really have to wait for RDA testing to start using these--they are/will be useful whether or not RDA is adopted, so let's start supplying them now. Ted is correct that currently systems don't search or display data in these fields but that can and will change.
As a programmer I know likes to say, the cataloging world cannot continue to stand with one foot on the train and the other on the platform. Using subfield $c for occupation and field of activity is a prime example of this. It works for the cataloger but isn't as helpful as assumed for users and certainly makes a mess for computers.
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
San Antonio Texas 78265
[log in to unmask]