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
|