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 2012

PCCLIST May 2012

Subject:

Re: Use of field 678 with corporate body history

From:

"Cuneo, Mary Jane" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:20:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

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
(Serials cataloging)
Harvard University Library
(NACO)




-----Original Message-----
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.

Amy

-----Original Message-----
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
: 1613-1917)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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]
> 
>

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

June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
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