I don't think "correctness" is an absolute in these areas. The coding
is designed to enable choices, not necessarily to limit them. There
can be more than one "correct" choice of how to make use (or not) of
the $w nnna for indexing. If there were no code, there wouldn't be a
choice, which is more limiting.
That said, I think reducing clutter is a big part of it. Sometimes the
old heading is very close but not identical in form to a 4XX that
would be constructed to more current rules. The $w nnna code lets us
choose to suppress one of those references from public view while
keeping the old heading's reference in the cataloger's index to catch
incoming headings that need updating.. I'm not sure users have to
catch up with current cataloging practices to benefit from that.
As for the foreign language question, we've faced similar issues in
regard to French and German subject headings on incoming copy
cataloging. We retain and index them as subject keywords, but not as
separate subject systems. If someone finds a record by searching a
term that's in one of these subject headings, fine; but if they think
that the foreign language heading will be a useful access point for
pursuing other records on their topic, not so fine, since the
appearance of such subject headings is relatively scarce and
haphazard. Choices, choices ...
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks, Adam and Stephen, for explaining that.
> So it sounds like you're saying that if OCLC and my library's Horizon catalog were following the rules correctly, "Neumann, Robert, Zahnarzt" would not be displaying on index screens. But some users may still be searching for forms with the $c in foreign languages. Is this rule intended to reduce clutter on our index screens, with the hope that users will catch up with current cataloging practices?
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Subfield coding for $w
> The $w fourth position "a" in a 4XX signifies that the reference should not be displayed in a public index where consistency with a set of rules is intended for all controlled access points and references.
> It doesn't mean that the system shouldn't index the 4XX for other purposes, e.g., to assist catalogers or to enable automated correction of the old heading. If a given system decides not to be scrupulous about having all controlled access points and references adhere to one rule set in public indexes, then it could choose to disregard the $w nnna and display all the 4XXs there.
> One addendum for the list of options when dealing with old headings--when a 4XX for an older form of the heading is found to be in conflict with a 1XX heading, practice has been to resolve the conflict by moving the older form into a 667 note (cf.DCM Z1, on NACO Normalization), e.g.,
> 667 $a Old catalog heading: Napoléon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821
> The old heading normalizes the same as the current heading, which omits the acute accent; so it can't go in a 4XX.
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> When you say "such references are not supposed to be displayed as references in the catalog," do you mean they shouldn't be searchable? Or that they shouldn't display on index screens? But if either of those things is true, why include them on authority records at all? Just to show the history of the heading?
>> Ted Gemberling
>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
>> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:03 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Subfield coding for $w
>> $w nnea means that it is a formerly established access point/heading that is not valid as a reference in whatever cataloging rules are being used, so for RDA that means not valid as an RDA variant access point. Such references are not supposed to be displayed as references in the catalog. That's the basic idea at least. So a heading that was ok in AACR2 that would not be a proper variant access point in RDA would be coded $w nnea. If the AACR2 form IS a valid variant access point in RDA, then you would use $w nne.
>> 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]
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>>> I revised a name authority record for RDA. I think my RDA headings
>>> are still under review. I wanted to know if I understood the $w
>>> subfield coding. It's n 2003127508 for Neumann, Robert (Dentist). The
>>> old (I presume AACR2) heading was Neumann, Robert, Zahnarzt. I just
>>> looked at the LC documentation at
>>> and realized that I probably used the wrong $w coding in the 400. I used nnaa which means it was a pre-AACR2 form of the heading, and the reference "will not be displayed." If this is an AACR2 form, the third character should be e. I'm not sure what "not displayed" means. I notice that the 400 form does display in the index screens of both OCLC and my home catalog, in spite of that coding.
>>> Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
>>> Ted Gemberling
>>> UAB Lister Hill Library
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455