LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  July 2014

PCCLIST July 2014

Subject:

Re: Controlled vocabularies in NARs - more questions for PCC

From:

Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:21:11 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

I agree that most of the 008 is of questionable usage.  Simplifying it would simplify NACO training.  Currently slides 138-161 of Module 1 are devoted to explaining elements for which defaults are system supplied and  which very seldom need to be changed.

An interesting example of the lack of agreement on how to update LCSH is the Airlie House Subject Subdivisions Conference, which was supposed to simplify subdivisions.   Some aspects were simplified, but IMHO, other aspects became more complicated.  That always seems to happen when there is a committee of catalogers and cataloger-types :-).  Yet I agree that we should continue efforts at change rather than scrap the whole system.  

Regards,

Amy


Amy Turner

Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries

[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Controlled vocabularies in NARs - more questions for PCC

Eugene

Fortunately most of the 008 content is provided to our cataloguers on a template, and often changes automatically on export, but I agree with you that I can't see what much of it is for. Never have been able to, in fact.

I agree with you on "College teachers". I'm inputting odd and unusual LCSH into our NARs all the time, not to mention the cultural specifics.

But I don't think the terms currently in use matter too much matters. As long as we can link the data, so that, for example, a relationship is recorded between no 97014962 and sh 85028378, then whatever the LCSH preferred term is changed to, the link between the identifiers will be maintained. In fact the notion of preferred names and preferred terms becomes a matter of agency choice and display... 

LCSH is badly in need of an overhaul; Lois Mai Chan's essential work of bibliographic archaeology, that gave rise to the SHM, is more than 35 years old. LCSH contains too much that is useful, and is too prevalent in our data going back many decades, to be dispensed with. At the same time, it's internally inconsistent, occasionally uses bizarre terminology, has very many gaps. Although I doubt two people will have the same views on how to update it, abandoning the notion of the preferred term will go a long way. That, and a lot more postcoordination. 


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 Dickerson, Eugene H
Sent: 16 July 2014 15:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Controlled vocabularies in NARs - more questions for PCC

Hi, Richard.

Thanks for sharing that information.  I agree that this is the kind of thing we all need to do.

Maybe BIBFRAME can incorporate something like you described for all PCC catalogers to use.  At least, I think that the next greatest thing, be it BIBFRAME or something else, needs to help do the work more efficiently with far less reliance on data entry and spending time worrying about coding within a metadata schema as we've been doing all these years with MARC.  (I don't want to see any indicators or delimiter symbols or subfield codes in whatever the next thing is.  Just give me a natural language template, and I'm happy!  Let the computer figure out how to output and format the data for machine use.)

I think that there are things we code, especially in the 008 field, that don't seem to serve any real purpose any longer, such as the byte for Reference evaluation.  Why would anyone be creating references that are inconsistent with the heading?  This is another "we've always done it"
things, but what purpose does it currently serve?  What's the point of coding the byte for Rules as z (Other)?  Sure, these things can be defaulted in a template, but for what reason?  We're now coding explicitly in the 040 $e what rules we're following, so what's the purpose of the Rules byte in the 008? It seems redundant to me.

I think your example of "College teachers" is an interesting example.
Personally, I think "College teachers" is a horrible phrase to use to describe academics.  I don't think that it's a phrase that most users would use if they were trying to find people who are college professors or academic researchers.  I also think it's unlikely that many people who are academics would describe themselves as "college teachers".
That's another problem with LCSH.  It often doesn't keep up with changes in the vernacular.  That's the down side of depending on one organization to manage the thesaurus.  It would be nice if there were a way to streamline the request and approval process for additions and changes to LCSH, but as that's LC purview, that's something they'd have to address.  It may be a question of resources for them rather than the lack of desire to change the process.

Thanks for sharing the advice that the BL gives to catalogers in doing authority work.  I think that it's a good approach for us all to follow.

I also think you make a good point about the 670 field.  Perhaps there are ways to copy and paste data into the 3XX $u and $v.  I tend to copy and paste data into the 670 field whenever possible, too, because I don't want to have to re-key it from another source.

We really do need to brainstorm to find other ways of doing things and take inventory of what we really need to do vs. what we've always been doing.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts the PCCLIST.

Gene

Eugene Dickerson
Team Leader for Cataloging
Ralph J. Bunche Library
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC
[log in to unmask]
(202) 647-2191 (voice)


This email is UNCLASSIFIED

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Controlled vocabularies in NARs - more questions for PCC

Eugene

>If the work for the 3XX fields is critical, I'd like to see us identify 
>ways to streamline the process so that there's more time to devote to 
>fields we think are more critical and less time spent on coding fields 
>that are less critical, redundant, or not needed at all.

There's a certain amount that can be done by streamlining processes, and customising cataloguing clients.

We customised Aleph so that a cataloguer can search our local copy of the LCSH file directly from a 3XX field in an authority record (just as they can from a 650 in a bib record). They can find the LCSH term they want, then click to insert it. That's another reason for us to prefer LCSH.

We then discovered that certain terms for occupations were used much more frequently than others, and designed a drop-down menu from which they can be selected (the system limit was 36, but that covers a lot of the most common occupations). Aleph then inserts both a 374 field, and a corresponding 372 field (when one exists).

The most popular term was "College teachers", as we catalogue a lot of material by academics, lecturers, professors and so on. So we created a separate drop down menu for them, which not only inserts the appropriate terms for a "College teacher" in 372 and 374, but also allows a choice from the 36 most popular disciplines.

We have similar menus for 370 (giving the most popular associated countries), for relationship designators in 5XX, and for common phrases in 633 and 667 fields.

So although we are inputting more information into the records, often we are doing it more quickly.

What still takes time is transcribing data into 670 $b. Possibly we should be making greater use of 3XX $u and $v subfields instead, though this can involve repetition. Maybe PCC could look at more economical ways to relate the data recorded to the sources cited.

I certainly think that any discussion of how to get more controlled data into NARs must include considerations of how to do it more efficiently.
And as you say, Eugene, we should not be wasting time recording data likely to be of little value. In the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, we suggest to our cataloguers (and to anyone else who is
interested) that they should record only those elements that are readily ascertainable, useful and expedient to record. Where the last is concerned, we say: "only search the LCSH file briefly, for suitable terms. If a specific term is not available, use a broader term. If no term is readily ascertainable in a quick search, omit the field. Make full use of Aleph short keys and drop down menus to insert elements into the authority record."

If some of this can feed into PCC's deliberations, I hope it will be useful.

Regards
Richard

_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]






************************************************************************
******************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/> The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts :
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/inde
x.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
************************************************************************
*****************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
************************************************************************
*****************************************
Think before you print

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager