LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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  April 2015

PCCLIST April 2015

Subject:

Re: Best practices in updating authority records

From:

"Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:15:49 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Let me clarify NLM practices for the 3XX fields.  Where controlled vocabulary is required, NLM uses the authorized headings.  So our 370 and 373 fields will always use the authorized forms from the LC/NAF, or if it doesn't exist we record the name as it would be if it were established.  We are not routinely adding 374 fields to existing NACO records. 

If we are establishing a new name that needs an occupation added as a qualifier in the AAP to distinguish it from another name with the same character string, we will put that data in the 100 and in a 374 field.  If we have the occupational group in MeSH we will use that term and add a $2 mesh.  However, if MeSH does not contain an appropriate term, we will not search LCSH or other vocabularies, we will just put an occupation word in the 374 that matches what we've put in the 100, with no $2.  Other libraries who use LCSH are free to add a controlled 374, but should not remove the existing one.  

We are doing the same type of thing for the 368 field.  If we need to qualify a person or corporate body with some other type of attribute to make it unique or clarify that something is a corporate body, we are adding the term to the 1XX and it is not being taken from any particular vocabulary.  The cataloger determines the most appropriate term. Other libraries who use LCSH are free to add a controlled 368, but should not remove the existing one.  

Diane Boehr


-----Original Message-----
From: Moore, Richard [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: April 13, 2015 3:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records

Ian

My view: it's PCC best practice to use controlled vocabulary terms in both the fields in your example. It might be reasonable to leave the uncontrolled term "Law professor" in 374, in case the contributing institution requires it, and make an additional 374 entry following best practice, using a term from LCSH or another controlled subject vocabulary. However, I see no argument against upgrading the uncontrolled form of Durham Law School in 373 to the authorised form in LC/NAF.

I assume no2007019345 is the record concerned. The discrete metadata fields were added in 2012, when use of controlled vocabulary was not as well-established as it is now. The record was not re-coded as RDA when they were added - I don't think it would be unreasonable to give the record a best practice RDA makeover while upgrading it. If I recall, NLM's local requirement was for a 374 matching a 100 qualifier. There is no 100 qualifier in this access point, and it's not an NLM record (I don't know whether NLM routinely add uncontrolled 374 fields to NACO records they haven't created).

Regards
Richard

________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
E-mail: [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
Sent: 07 April 2015 13:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records

PCCLIST readers,

Diane Boehr said, in her message of Feb. 25: "We are seeing a disturbing trend of libraries removing various 3XX fields from authority records created by NLM to substitute LCSH terms.  We would like to remind PCC libraries that not everyone uses LCSH and while it is perfectly permissible to add an additional 3XX from your preferred controlled vocabulary, please do not remove the existing data from authority records."  Is there any way that fields such as Diane identifies can be labelled with a code, say in subfield 2 or 5 (which is not currently valid in some pertinent fields), so that people can know that they should not be edited to other forms?  It would be nice, for example, for NLM to have its own code applied in such cases.

I ask in the context of encountering a NAR having these fields:

373  Durham Law School ǂa Durham University
374  Law professor

I found no NAR by browsing for Durham Law Schoo in lthe NACO authority file.  The NAR retrieved by Durham University (n  80050517) has: University of Durham.  NAR no2011030739 has: University of Durham. ǂb Department of Law.

Among other factors we have here a cultural distinction between U.S. and English practice in referring to universities and their departments.  (The Durham in question is Durham, England, in case you're wondering!)  To the English "Durham University" is just another less formal way of saying "University of Durham", whereas in the U.S. some institutions can be confused by such a liberal use of the language, and people don't usually say, for example, "New York University" to refer to the State University of New York.  Ditto for "Law school" - the University of Durham technically hasn't got one; it has a Department.  But the source in hand uses "Durham Law School", and without further investigation you wouldn't necessary know about these subtleties.

Similar remarks can be made about field 374.  In this case the source in hand reads "Professor of Law." Elsewhere I've written about the U.S./British differences in use of the term professor.  The converse applies in that U.S. usage is more liberal.  To be titled Professor is a tremendous achievement in British academia, whereas anyone teaching a college course in the U.S. can get called "professor".

According to Diane's message we should leave the existing fields alone, resisting any notion of "correcting" them and, if desired, add new ones for the forms found in NARs.  But it would help to be able to designate all such fields with an institution code, so that we know that they are valid within that organization's terms.  Sad to say, the fact that a record originates from a particular institution isn't necessarily an indication that it is free of error.

In any case, the person in question is now at "Essex Law School"!  In case you're interested the book in hand is "Moral rhetoric and the criminalisation of squatting", OCLC 878117385 LCCN 2014014882, and the NAR which prompts this message is no2011030739.  I was about to make some edits to the NAR, but didn't.

Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
George Mason University
[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/index.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

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