I too think "Scholar" as a profession or occupation is fairly useless and 
doesn't likely help much to serve the identification of a person.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Ted P Gemberling wrote:

> This strikes me as not a very important problem since the middle initial was spelled out elsewhere in the book. I would think that the frequently appealed to ?cataloger?s judgment? makes the 100 adequate. If someone looks for George F. Black, they will find George Fraser.
>
> What I worry about more on that RDA record is the 374 ?Scholar.? I realize those fields are set up to make the authorities more machine-readable and searchable. That will probably prove useful in the future. But how many people are going to have the generic ?Scholar? on their authorities? That may be useless. In the NACO RDA training, there is one example of an author on interior design who got a BA in biology, so biology was put on as one of her fields. But as far as I know she?s never published anything on biology. My ?cataloger?s judgment? would not be to put that on as a field for her. Or would that be breaking a rule? I guess I think of rules as tools for helping us do a good job, not ends in themselves.
>
> It seems like we are doing subject analysis to some extent if we add those 374 and 372 fields. Should we be conservative in adding things like ?Scholar? or err on the side of adding them? I would think conservative would be better.
>
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> (205)934-2461
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black
>
> There is also this about sources of information for the preferred name from RDA 9.2.2.2 (emphasis added):
>
> Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources *(in order of preference):*
> a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2) in resources associated with the person
> b) other formal statements appearing in resources associated with the person
> c) other sources (including reference sources).
>
> ------------------------------------------
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
> Langdell Hall 194
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herrold, Charles
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 13:16
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black
>
>    On the other hand, the heavily predominant usage in OCLC is George F. Black.  I also found George Fraser Black, G.F. Black, and Geo. Fraser Black, which could be cited.  Since George Fraser Black was coded AACR2 compatible, that implies that the fuller form was not interpreted as fully compliant with AACR2, and bib records support that.
>    Another problem that hasn?t been mentioned is that there is no justification for the dates in the AR:
>
> 046  ?f 1866 ?g 1948
> 1001 Black, George Fraser, ?d 1866-1948
> 373  New York Public Library
> 374  Author ?a Scholar ?a Bibliographer
> 375  male
> 377  eng
> 670  The surnames of Scotland, 1993: ?b t.p. (George F. Black) cover p. 4 (Dr. George Fraser Black was a noted bibliographer and historical scholar at the N.Y. Public Library for over 30 years)
>
>   They are no doubt on the manual authority record at LC, but I believe that an effort should be made when upgrading such a record to find that information.
> Chuck Herrold
> Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black
>
> John Hostage asked:
> why was the heading Black, George Fraser, 1866-1948 converted unchanged from an AACR2-compatible to an RDA heading? The only t.p. form given is George F. Black, so shouldn?t the access point be Black, George F., 1866-1948 ?
>
> After a quick look at the authority record I would say it is because the 670 includes the form "George Fraser Black" indicating that "George Fraser Black" is used somewhere;since RDA allows you to take the form of the name from other sources besides the t.p. and because the email instructions, "Summary of Programmatic Changes to the LC/NACO Authority File" dated July 30, 2012.
>
> RDA-trained PCC catalogers encountering a name authority record (NAR) with this 667 field should evaluate the 1XX field, and the remainder of the authority record. If the evaluation determines that the existing 1XX field can be used under RDA as given, the cataloger should remove the 667 field, add any additional non-heading fields, and re-code the record to RDA. If the evaluation determines that the existing 1XX needs to be updated to be made acceptable for use under RDA, the cataloger should revise the heading, make a reference from the former heading when applicable, remove the 667 field, add any additional non-heading fields of their choosing, and re-code the record to RDA. "
>
> I interpret the instructions that it is better to retain a 1xx if the form of the name is justified in a 670. There certainly are works with "by George Fraser Black". I think it would have been better to have added a second 670 with the other form from the t.p. but can understand why the cataloger did not add one.
> Mary L. Mastraccio
> ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair
> Cataloging & Authorities Manager
> MARCIVE, Inc.
> San Antonio, TX 78265
> 1-800-531-7678
>
>
> This email message and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.??? Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by anyone other than the intended individual or entity is prohibited without prior approval.??? If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.
>
>
>