Thanks for the good comments, suggestions, and observations. I shared them with PSD and we have re-worked the instruction sheet, incorporating your examples and corrections. The updated PDF will be posted next week.
There is no prohibition on coding a subfield $2 naf in the 370 field, as long as the place names that are recorded in the field are supported by authorized access points in the LC/NACO Authority File.
We added subfield $2 naf to the examples in the updated version that will be posted next week.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] MARC 21 370 and 382 fields in NARs: New NACO policy
In the first example in the revised 370 document, it is not clear what this is for:
Form of name as an addition in an access point:
151 ## $a Washington (State)
The form of name when used as an addition in an access point would still be Wash., not Washington (State), wouldn't it? For example:
110 2_ Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (Wash.)
Or is this DCM Z1 page implying that the qualifier to be used is now Washington (State), as in:
110 2_ Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (Washington (State))
The second to fourth examples for "Form of name as an addition in an access point:" should just give the form that would be used, and then an appropriate example:
Form of name as an addition in an access point: Korea
e.g. 110 2# $a Masa Pangmulgwan (Korea)
Form of name as an addition in an access point: Shiner, Tex.
e.g. 130 #0 $a Gazette (Shiner, Tex.)
Form of name as an addition in an access point: U.S.
e.g. 110 2# $a National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
If the last part of the first example is to be retained (and it doesn't make a lot of sense to say "Form of name as part of preferred name of a place in a U.S. state, territory, etc." since we are only talking about Washington State in this example), then something like this is equally appropriate for the Korea example too. I would suggest revising the first example as follows:
Form of name as an addition in an access point: Wash.
e.g. 110 2# $a Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (Wash.) Form of name as part of preferred name of a local place: Wash.
e.g. 151 ## $a Seattle (Wash.)
And add to the Korea example:
Form of name as part of preferred name of a local place: Korea
e.g. 151 ## $a Seoul (Korea)
I find this sentence a bit confusing: "If the place name is not found in the LC/NAF or other source of authorized headings, formulate it according to the current cataloging guidelines being used." What exactly is meant by "current cataloging guidelines being used"? I am assuming that for a jurisdiction or some other entity like a concentration camp or airport covered under NACO, that the cataloging guidelines would be RDA and LC-PCC PSs. If the entity would be created through SACO, then the
guidelines would be the Subject Headings Manual. Yes? If so, I think
we should be explicit and specific about this. What OTHER current cataloging guidelines would we expect PCC catalogers to use when formulating a place name to record in this field?
Finally I find it problematic the absence of $2 in this field could mean at least three different things: either the place is from the LC/NAF, or it is not from any authorized source, or it is from an authorized source but there is no source code for that source. I don't think this is very good as a practice. If the term is taken from a controlled vocabulary that has a source code, I think the code for that source ought to be required. That way it is completely clear that the term is authorized by some source, and that a term recorded without a source code is not "established" by an authority (even if it may have been formulated according to some cataloging guidelines).
* 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 Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Frank, Paul wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:38:07 -0400
> From: "Frank, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: MARC 21 370 and 382 fields in NARs: New NACO policy
> Hi everyone--
> Sending this on behalf of colleagues in the LC Policy and Standards Division (PSD).
> Dear NACO Folks,
> We are pleased to announce information related to two fields commonly found in LC/NACO records:
> 370 (Associated place)
> 382 (Medium of performance)
> Field 370 (Associated place): After discussions on the PCC list, and by participants at the PCC Operations Committee meeting and PCC-related meetings at ALA Annual, the policy for formulating a place name to be used in field 370 will now be to use the authorized form of the place. This practice should make it easier for catalogers to supply data for this field, and improve the potential for the data to be used in a linked environment. It will no longer be necessary to re-formulate some place names to look the same as they would if they were being added as an addition to the access point in the 1XX. A revised DCM Z1 page for the 370 field, with examples, will be formally published in November-- a pre-publication version has been posted and may be applied. Cataloger's are welcome to, but not required to, change the forms found on existing authority records.
> Field 382 (Medium of performance): The NACO nodes have now all completed the necessary work to implement the new first indicator and new subfields ($b, $d, $p, $n, $s, $v) that were added with MARC Authority Update no. 14 (http://www.loc.gov/marc/up14authority/adapndxf.html). Catalogers may ignore the DCM Z1 information for field 382 that indicates these indicators/subfields may not be used. A revised DCM Z1 page for the 382 field, with additional guidelines provided by the music cataloging community, will be formally published in November-- a pre-publication version has been posted and may be applied. Cataloger's are welcome to, but not required to add the appropriate indicator and/or subfields to the forms found on existing authority records.
> Location of pre-publication DCM Z1 pages, under "MARC 21 Encoding" on the Post RDA Implementation Guidelines and Standards<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Post-RDA-Implementation-Guidelines.html> page.
> Note: Changes from later MARC Updates (including new 368 subfields from MARC Update no. 15, and various fields in MARC Update no. 16) will be implemented in the future; stay tuned for more information.
> Paul Frank
> Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs Cooperative Programs
> Section Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division Library of
> 101 Independence Ave., SE
> Washington, DC 20540-4230
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]