LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  October 2012

PCCLIST October 2012

Subject:

Re: Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem

From:

Jenifer K Marquardt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:48:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 lines)

The ongoing conference heading is still needed, also, for instances where it supports a serial treatment of conference proceedings.  So there should still be times when new ongoing headings will be created, right?

Jenifer

Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641

________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Benjamin A Abrahamse [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem

As someone who had the great good fortune to be part of the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues, where the issue of headings for ongoing conferences was something we spent a fair amount of time discussing, I'd just like to support Dave Reser's point.  One of the main reasons we recommended two types of headings--collective and individual--for ongoing conferences is to move away from the AACR2/LCRI practice of converting existing "one-time" conference NARs into "ongoing" conference NARs, which always resulted in removing data from the controlled access point, and some cases from the record altogether.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reser, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 6:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem

Colleagues,

Richard, Ian, Mary Charles, and Gary are all making an important point-- don't re-use a record for one entity (or group of entities) for a different entity.  We fairly regularly (although not recently) plead with folks not to 're-use' LCCNs, which has the same adverse impact.

I'd also like to note that the PCC policies for ongoing conferences (whether an individual instance, or collective treatment) recommended by the PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues will be published in the October 9 release of the RDA Toolkit as the LC-PCC PS* for 11.13.1.8, I'm sure other documentation and training materials will be updated in turn.

Thanks again to all for the reminder,

Dave Reser
LC PSD
*Yes, the former Library of Congress Policy Statements will be re-branded as the LC-PCC Policy Statements in the October release of the RDA Toolkit;  the task of getting the "PCC practice" lables recorded in all appropriate places is still ongoing, but the name change will soon be live!



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem

Ian

When creating RDA NARs on LC/NAF for an ongoing conference, NARs are created both representing the series of conferences as a whole (the collective NAR), and for the individaul instances of the conference (the individual NARs).

Any information based on AACR2 and LCRIs is obsolete in this context - though I guess it is still OK to create AACR2 style NARs until next March - which will correspond to RDA collective NARs.

It will cause confusion if people change existing AACR2 "collective" NARs to become RDA "individual NARs". Makes more sense to create the individual NARs as new NARs.

Regards
Richard

Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging on behalf of Ian Fairclough
Sent: Tue 02/10/2012 20:44
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Changing Ongoing Conference NAR's-problem
PCCLIST readers,

Two NARs are now extant for the conference "Conference on Stably Stratified Flows" with which Mary Charles Lasater initiated this e-mail thread.  One was originally created for the ongoing series, then changed to represent just the fifth (in the process, merging two NARs and updating to RDA).  One was originally created to represent just the fourth.  Perhaps the one representing just the fourth should not have been created according to AACR2 NACO practice (below) but is now what is required in RDA.

Recently I used OCLC's macro for creating a NAR, and it created one for the ongoing series.  In the bib record, I added data for the individual conference (number, year, place) and controlled the heading.

The document NACO Training for OCLC Libraries (April 2010), available here
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco/pdf/training_manuals/2010_Trainees_Manual.pdf
has on p. 3-57 this information:

Conferences : Ongoing
$a subfield: place or date
• Omit number and frequency words from name of conference (e.g. second, annual, etc.)
Bibliographic record:
• Always add number ($n), date ($d), and place ($c) in bibliographic access point, if available
Name authority record:
• Do not add any qualifier in NAR
• If a conflict exists, add appropriate qualifier in 111
AACR2 & LCRI 24.7B

Is this information now obsolete?  Under RDA, I understand that all NARs are required to have qualifying information. (Note: I have not yet received RDA training for NACO - please correct if necessary.)  So there will be no more NARs for ongoing series, just for individual conferences.  Is this correct?  Surely new NARs need to be created in all cases, as Mary Charles originally said.  But if this is not widely understood, the consequences can cause a minor havoc.  - Ian

Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
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