It's useful to distinguish between the functions of the access point, and the discrete data recorded in separate fields in the authority record. 

Access points are needed by MARC and by current systems, and they create a display that is both unique and informative to the user. There's no need for controlled vocabulary for terms used to describe occupations; the important thing is to make the access point unique, so we can be flexible in what we consider an "occupation". However, we are already looking beyond MARC, to an environment where precoordinated access points are less important, and the person will be identified by all the data in the authority record, with displays assembled as required.

The true home of this data element in the authority record is in its discrete field (374 in MARC 21), where we are encouraged to use controlled vocabulary terms, for purposes of retrieval, machine matching and linked data.   

So, occupations will often be recorded differently in 100 |c and in 374. In my view, "Native American rights activist" is fine for 100 |c, but I would want to look for a controlled term for 374 (LCSH being the popular choice), perhaps "Civil rights workers" (which is the preferred form in LCSH for "Civil rights activists"). Of course, there is no reason why you couldn't use "Civil rights worker" in 100 |c as well. An lot of this is left to the discretion of the cataloguer.

The function of an RDA authority record is to record data that identifies an entity, in consistent, machine-readable form, which is why the 046/3XX MARC tags are so important - we shouldn't lose sight of this when discussing access points.

Regards
Richard


_________________________
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library
                                                                        
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                                
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                            
 
    

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: 02 April 2013 22:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO record with occupational qualifier in 400 but not in 100

Though it's not what was asked, I find the question of whether $c "(Native American rights activist)" is the best choice of term for this fellow's profession quite interesting.

It is certainly descriptive, but I wonder whether, "Native American" being one of those types of terms that seems to be revisited over the years, it might be too specific? Would "social activist" be a more stable--though perhaps less precise--qualifier?  Or what about going the other direction: "Vice-President of the Indian Rights Association" which is even more specific but perhaps less descriptive?

I should make it clear I'm not trying to criticize your choice, as I think you've done an admirable job of documenting why you chose the qualifier that you did, which is the most important thing; rather I'm just interested in these new (or at least, newly-important) qualifiers in name authorities.


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 5:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NACO record with occupational qualifier in 400 but not in 100

Perfectly reasonable. It often happens that, a conflict arising later, an existing 400 is modified in some way that is not reflected in the 100.  For example, subfield $d might need to be added to an existing 400 to avoid a conflict with a new heading, even though the 100 in that record contains no $d.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask]   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.         BatchCat version: 2007.22.416


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Long, Chris Evin
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] NACO record with occupational qualifier in 400 but not in 100

I'm trying to concoct a heading for this person and haven't encountered this situation before.  The situation would be easy if I had dates, but unfortunately I can't find any.  The issue arises in the 400 because the fuller form of the name conflicts with an existing name heading.  Per RDA 9.19.2.1, I can make an addition to the variant name (see the Brown, Charlie (Composer) example there), but the $c isn't needed in the 100 field, so now  I have "mismatched" 100/400 fields.


100 1 Brown, Wm. Alexander $q (William Alexander)
373    Indian Rights Association $2 naf
375    male
377    eng
378    $q William Alexander
400 1 Brown, William Alexander $c (Native American rights activist)
667    Cannot identify with: Brown, William Alexander, n2002037927
670   Threatened exploitation of Pima Indians, 1920: $b p. 10 (Wm. Alexander Brown, vice-president and chairman Law Committee, I.R.A.)
670   Wikipedia, viewed Apr. 2, 2013 $b (The Indian Rights Association (IRA) was an American social activist group dedicated to the well being and acculturation of Native Americans. Founded in Philadelphia in 1882, the Indian Rights Associations (IRA) was highly influential in American Indian policy through the 1930s and remained involved as an organization until 1994)

Is this reasonable? Given that I have no other info, is there a better way?

Oh, and trying to devise an appropriate occupational term given the info I could find was a whole other bag of fun. 

Thanks for any suggestions,

**********************************
Chris Long
Catalog Librarian
Ruth Lilly Law Library
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
530 W. New York St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 317.274.1930
Fax: 317.274.8825