Yes, it is good to continually examine what we are doing, for whom, and why. I would add that there are different communities of catalogers and patrons to think about. Our NACO-contributing archivists and visual resources catalogers are pleased that 678 is back; it suits the kind of authority work they do and the services they provide. (Someone from the archival or visual resources community could say much more about this than I.) Having 678 available helps to make NACO a bigger tent.
Mary Jane Cuneo
Harvard College Library Technical Services
Harvard University Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of field 678 with corporate body history
Back to the future, and forward to the past ...
In the early days of AACR2 (I think continuing a AACR1 policy) LCAF records included extensive histories of corporate mergers and splits, intended for patron use. At Duke, we typed these up on explanatory cards and filed them into the catalog in front of the cards with the relevant headings. A cataloger working at the Cataloger Information Desk reported that a patron asked how he would find the book that he thought the card referred to. We were glad when LC phased out the explanatory text in favor of plain earlier/later links. I suspect that the one patron's puzzlement was not unique; that patrons see the catalog as a [hopefully] quick and easy guide to the collection, not a source of information in itself. One could argue that electronic metadata and online access have changed this. I'm sure it has to some extent, but I believe there is still a big disconnect between patron's and cataloger's views of the catalog, and would like to see more research into bringing them better into synch.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Use of field 678 with corporate body history
The 678 field was not used in NACO records done under AACR2. If you look at the old MARC 21 Authority: LC Guidelines ("Blue Pages") for this field it was marked as: "NACO: Do not use this field." The LC Guidelines are now revised and say: "NACO: May be supplied in a NAR coded 008/10 c or z."
So, the 678 can now be used for AACR2 or RDA records, but this is only a very recent change, and you won't find the examples in the MARC documentation in name authorities.
Here's a family name in RDA that has a 678: no2012067728 Romanov (Dynasty
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
On Wed, 23 May 2012, Ian Fairclough wrote:
> PCCLIST readers,
> Although the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data gives an example of
> usage of field 678 Biographical or Historical Data, I am not aware of actual usage in name authority records. The example is:
> 678 1# $aThe Office of Geography provides research and other staff
> services for the interdepartmental Board on Geographic Names and the
> Secretary of the Interior on foreign geographic nomenclature.$bThe Office inherited functions and records of earlier boards and committees engaged in similar work. The earliest of these, the U.S.
> Board on Geographic Names, was created by an Executive order of
> September 4, 1890, to ensure uniform usage throughout the executive departments of the Government ...
> I searched "Office of Geography" in the NAF and retrieved 15 NARs, but
> none of them had a 678 field. The one that looked like it might have been the basis for the example, "United States. ?bOffice of Geography", had this note:
> 667 The Division of Geography was created in the Dept. of the
> Interior in 1947. In 1955 the division was renamed Office of
> Geography. In Mar. 1968 the functions of the Office of Geography were transferred to the Geographic Names Division of the Army Map Service (after Jan. 16, 1969, Army Topographic Command).
> So field 667, a Non-Public General Note, was used rather than field
> 678, rather than field 678, which under Field Definition and Scope has: "Usually written in a form adequate for public display."
> Did field 678 simply go out of fashion? Has there been a technical
> reason for its non-use? And are there in fact any systems which could
> take advantage of such a note to display to the public? (Not that
> they would, if there aren't any 678 notes in any NARs to display!)
> Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - [log in to unmask]