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  May 2011

PCCLIST May 2011

Subject:

Comments on OpCo Document 1

From:

"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 May 2011 18:11:54 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (253 lines)

Document 1

N-2: Yes. At very least the policy should be to permit libraries to add 
these fields, but I would like to see it highly encouraged because the 
promise of RDA and of these separate fields in a Web-based environment 
will only actually be achieved if we use these elements.

N-3: Yes. 1) personal names that are lacking dates or fuller form of name 
that would be present in RDA. 2) Maybe uniform titles with language 
qualifiers that were set up under AACR2 (e.g., with two-language 
qualifiers or with "Polyglot" as qualifier).  3) Personal names with AACR2 
qualifiers that aren't used in RDA (e.g., titles associated with a person 
used to break a conflict).  4) I think a task force needs to be convened 
to look into all possible categories.

N-4: There is no LCRI 22.11A in Cataloger's Desktop.  So not sure what 
this question is about.  RDA 9.15 Field of Activity: Field of activity of 
the person is a core element for a person whose name consists of a phrase 
or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.  RDA 9.16 Profession or 
Occupation: Profession or occupation is a core element for a person whose 
name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a 
person.  Since these two elements are CORE in this situation, I don't see 
what the issue is - you must record the element for such a name.  I think 
it should be required to record it as a qualifier in the access point for 
the name.  Optionally it can also be recorded in the separate MARC fields 
for Field of Activity (372) or Profession/Occupation (374).

N-4a: YES. I think it is about time that we establish a unique identifier 
for each person, regardless of whether the name itself is differentiated. 
This would allow catalogers to control headings in OCLC and when one the 
headings is changed, the records would be automatically flipped.  It would 
allow different diacritics on the headings as well so that they wouldn't 
all be flipped to just one form of name by authority vendors/control 
processes.  However, it presents a few issues that also will need to be 
worked out: 1) we'd have to allow 100s on separate NARs to normalize to 
the same string - this is currently not allowed. 2) For authority 
processing by vendors, this may be one instance where it would be wise and 
helpful to include the LCCN identifier in bibliographic headings in the 
subfield $0.  Otherwise, it's not clear how a vendor would be able to 
match to the correct authority record for the person.

N-5: Yes, the guidance is helpful.  Note RDA 11.7 is a CORE element: Other 
designation associated with the corporate body is a core element for a 
body with a name that does not convey the idea of a corporate body.

N-7a: 1) Allow if needed for serial cataloging.  2) Allow but don't 
require. What would the relationship designator for this relationship be? 
Not sure if one-way or reciprocal links should be the way to do it, but 
don't we now pretty much always do reciprocal?  3) No, I think there 
should be authorities for each conference.  Makes it possible to control 
them and avoids differences in qualifiers that I've seen for the same 
conference (e.g., places given in different or incorrect forms).

N-8: If not a policy, then at least some helpful guidelines about which 
additions to use.

N-9: Easier to continue the current practice, and it's in accord with RDA 
options.  If the fuller form is not included in the access point though, 
it should definitely be recorded in the separate element (MARC 378) once 
that field is approved by MARBI.

N-10: Continue current practice in AACR2 of adding both dates and fuller 
form of initials when they are known.  Allow catalogers to use their 
judgment to apply the option to add a fuller form of name even if there is 
no need to distinguish between access points.  If not added to the access 
point, at least record it in the separate MARC field 378 once MARBI 
establishes it.

N-10a: Strongly encourage catalogers to add it.  Having it will make all 
sorts of interesting searches and limits possible that we can't do now.

N-11: My preference is to give fuller form when that information is known. 
Or allow catalogers to repeat the field, giving the short form in one and 
the longer form in the second.   I also want to see more guidance in 
documentation on recording questionable or approximate dates than is 
currently available in the MARC format, as well as when to use subfield 
$2.

N-12a: Encourage catalogers to give these fields, otherwise the promise of 
RDA will not be achieved.  Probably best to include at least the elements 
that are CORE in RDA, even if the access point itself has the additions 
recorded in the separate elements.

N-13: For elements that have potential to be added to access points to 
break conflicts, the punctuation/capitalization of the separate element 
should make it simple for on-the-fly additions to the access point.  So if 
the qualifier in the access point should be capitalized, I think the 
separate element should be.  This is why the examples in RDA are 
capitalized for the elements that are recorded when needed to distinguish 
entities that have the same name.

N-14: It would be helpful to have a policy that we all follow.  Otherwise 
it will be harder to share bibliographic records.

N-15: Just today I had a case where I needed to repeat 374 to give terms 
found in two separate sources with the URL for those sources:

374  Actor $u 
http://movies.nytimes.com/person/24655/Franco-Franchi/biography
374  Comedian $u http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Franchi

1) Probably would be helpful to have a best practice.  2-3) Probably best 
to repeat the $a unless separate $u or $v or $2 are needed.

Actually, this brings up the issue that I would like to have some best 
practice recommendations about when to give $u, $v, or $2 (that is, when 
should we use a term from a controlled vocabulary?  Does it matter that 
some vocabularies would give a term in the plural (e.g. LCSH: Actors) when 
it appears that the term in RDA ought to be in the singular?

N-16: 1) No. 2-3) Yes, but some guidance about when to choose one or the 
other would be helpful to catalogers.  See my example above in N-15. 
I gave the URL instead of saying $v Wikipedia, viewed on May 2, 2011.  Is 
one better than the other?

N-17: prefer fuller info that can be verified later on if need be.  1) 
Date of pub. would be needed to differentiate manifestations with same 
title.  Best to just give it so that it's available from the beginning. 2) 
helpful, but perhaps not so important. 3) Yes, this is important to know. 
4-5) I'd prefer the most info, but could live without pagination.  We need 
to train catalogers to make the best decisions about what to give if not 
all the bits are required.

N-18: For Field of Activity (9.15) there is guidance needed on what type 
of noun to record.  For example, which is correct?: "Stamp collector" 
(which is what is currently in RDA as an example) or "Stamp collecting". 
That is, should the activity be recorded as a class of persons type term, 
which is what would be better to add as an addition to an access point, or 
as an actual "field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a 
person is engaged or was engaged"?  In other words, do the examples in RDA 
need to be revised.  Which of these two forms of access points would we 
want:

Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collector)
Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collecting)

I think the former rather than the latter, but in many of the test RDA 
records I was seeing terms that weren't for classes of persons.

Other examples in RDA that would need changing if a class of persons-type 
heading is not what should be recorded (possible changes given to the 
right of the arrow):

Anglo-Norman poet  -->  Poetry writing  [??]
Crow Indian chief  -->  Crow Indian chiefdom   [??]
Biblical prophet   -->  Biblical prophecy  [??]
Owner of Dance news  -->  Dance journalism
Fire-eater         -->  Fire-eating
Lesbian rights activist --> Lesbian rights activism
Charity quiltmaker -->  Quiltmaking
Paper airplane hobbyist --> Paper airplane design
Star trek fan site webmaster --> Star trek website management

1) I think we should leave this to cataloger judgment, but for me the 
dividing line really is does the person make a living doing the thing or 
not?  If not, I would say that it belongs in Field of Activity.  If yes, 
then it's a Profession/Occupation.  In case of doubt, use judgment or code 
as Field of Activity.  2) Not opposed to this, if the JSC is willing. 
Again the key issue for me is what kind of noun to record - Stamp 
collector or Stamp collecting?  Astrologist or Astrology?  Cinematographer 
or Cinematography?  3) No, this is too narrow.  Many people are known 
primarily for things that they might not be paid for (e.g. political 
activists, amateur musicians, athletes, Biblical prophets <G>).

N-20: YES, we should encourage their use and we should develop a means for 
catalogers to suggest additional terms as they encounter the need for 
them.

N-21: YES, we should do reciprocal records with reciprocal designators. 
Here are examples I did:

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968)
500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 
1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 
530 _0 $i Remade as (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001) 
$w r 
530 _0 $i Sequel: $a Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture) $w r

100 1_ Boulle, Pierre, $d 1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes
530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes 
(Motion picture : 1968) $w r
530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes 
(Motion picture : 2001)

130 _0 Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture)
530 _0 $i Sequel to: $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) $w r

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001)
500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 
1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 
530 _0 $i Remake of (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) 
$w r

N-22: 1) No. 2) Yes. 3) Yes

N-23: 1) Give the 4XX and allow the cataloger to give the 5XX if they 
wish.

N-24: 1) Allow but use judgment. Can catalogers give a reference with 
different additions instead of changing the 100?  2)? Since there aren't 
family names in AACR2, I don't understand this question.

N-25: No, but they should be allowed, particularly for archival/special 
collections needs.

N-26: No, as long as the information is readable and clear.  RDA examples 
are in complete sentences without abbreviations.  If other formats are 
allowable, the PCC can give some in an PCC Policy Statement.

N-27: 1) It sure would be helpful for record sharing if we all followed 
the same policies for naming expressions.

N-28: 1) Yes, I think that we want members to contribute authority records 
in which the language of cataloging is English.  I guess I don't have a 
problem with equivalent records co-existing, but it raises a lot of 
issues.  If a library adds an authority record with language of cataloging 
(040 $b) of French, then the qualifiers and notes and other words used in 
access points (e.g. approximately) will be in French.  My library will not 
be able to use that authority and we certainly don't want an 
English-language of cataloging bib. record to be linked to it.  So we 
would have to clone it into an English-language record.  Maybe this isn't 
as big an issue as I think it is, but if the PCC wants to pursue this, 
then they will need a task group and will have to carefully consider all 
of the issues, particularly as they relate to authority control.

B-1: Yes

B-2: Not sure.  There really is a need for careful training, as evidenced 
by the many odd and incorrect things that can be seen in RDA records 
created during the test period.  I'd personally like to see PCC require 
some RDA training, but not sure how this could be administered and what 
that training would need to consist of.  No doubt, Judy Kuhagen and her 
test review group have a good idea of the kinds of errors that were 
consistently made during the test.

B-4: Not opposed to this if the training documentation is clear about what 
to do.

WF-1: Institutions should be allowed to do this themselves if they wish, 
or report to LC if they are unsure of correct subject usage. 680 would 
mean a displayable note to users, so I'm not opposed.  Actually, even 
better would be a different subject usage field that was meant to publicly 
display.  How about new field 685 Subject Usage Note?  Then you wouldn't 
need to input the term "SUBJECT USAGE:" in front of the note.  And the 
field would be nicely complementary to the 008/15 Subject Usage byte.

WF-2: Encourage use. Expand use of 034 to subject authority records, and 
also to non-jurisdictional entities (e.g., geog. coordinates for 
University of Washington could be recorded).


--Adam

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

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