Daniel, 
I don't think it's needed for that distinction because the 670 will tell people what kind of work he did. I think if you want a machine-searchable occupation or field for him, the only one that is justified is Bibliographer. Author and Scholar are too general to be useful. 

I thought of making Scholar more specific as "Historical Scholar," since he's called that in the 670, but that seems more like an honorific statement a publisher would put on a cover. 

He was definitely quite a scholar. I just did a search for blac,geo,f in OCLC. He published a lot of things. It seems like his biggest subjects were gypsies and Scotland. He must have been one of the foremost scholars on those topics. Would it be possible to put gypsies (Romanies in LCSH) and Scotland on a 372? They would be a lot more informative. 

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniel CannCasciato
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 5:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] George F. Black

>> On 11/16/12 at 1:49 PM, "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I too think "Scholar" as a profession or occupation is fairly useless 
> and

That was my first thought as well.  But it might help to differentiate a scholar - - however defined - -  from a musician or director or sculpture who comes along later.  

Daniel


--
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926
 
"Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!"