Richard,
Even if "Holiness" was a cataloger-supplied qualifier, would it be accurate to record the term in 368 as being taken from LCSH?
The LCSH term "Holiness" clearly refers to a general concept of holiness. As used in the qualifier, "Holiness" appears to signify the Holiness movement, the religious tendency known as "Holiness," specifically (see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement). "Holiness" is one nomen with at least two themae (is that the right plural?). Calling it an LCSH term in the 368 here seems like playing a little fast and loose.
Of course, if a cataloger-supplied qualifier is needed, "Holiness movement" might be more appropriate. That is less ambiguous and is in fact an LC subject heading.
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
Thanks Ted, you may well be right - I'm not really an expert in that kind of thing!
But if those terms *had* been used as qualifiers, then there are possible controlled equivalents in LCSH.
Regards
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: 28 May 2015 15:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
Richard,
As John Hostage said, (Holiness) is actually part of the church's name, not really a qualification. See their web page: http://www.cogh.net/
I think the same is true of Church of God (Seventh Day): https://cog7.org/
I doubt that it's really a form of Seventh Day Adventism, but I'm not sure.
Best, Ted Gemberling
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
Adam
I'd be tempted to use the LCSH terms "Holiness" and "Seventh Day Adventists":
368 $c Holiness $2 lcsh
368 $c Seventh Day Adventists $2 lcsh
Generally I suggest our cataloguers don’t bother with a 368 $c if it would contain an uncontrollable term that only exists in the 100 because a conflict needed to be broken. Bearing in mind also that a 9.19.1.8 Other Designation often translates into another element when recorded as discrete metadata:
1001 $a Nichols, Chris $c (Of the North Oxford Association)
373 $a North Oxford Association $2 naf
1000 $a Independent Burgess $c (Of Nottingham)
370 $a Nottingham (England) $2 naf
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 Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 27 May 2015 22:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
Agreed. Sometimes it can easily be controlled:
368 $c Soccer $2 lcsh
368 $c Saints $2 lcsh
368 $c Fictitious characters $2 lcsh
And others like Holiness and Seventh Day just cannot be controlled. The terms for titles in $d are almost never going to be able to be controlled. I think that's why the DCM Z1 says only to prefer controlled vocabulary for $a $b and $c and not $d.
Incidentally, while you're revising the record once it makes it through distribution, why not add 375 male as well? :)
Adam
On Wed, 27 May 2015, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:22:21 +0000
> From: Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Problem with this heading?
>
> Okay, that makes good sense. "Seventh Day" in $c would not lend itself to control, either. So I do wonder if $c may be rather like $d in being harder to control.
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>
> In this case, Holiness is being used as a qualifier to break a conflict, and I don't think you could control it when recorded in 368 $c. That term just doesn't lend itself to being controlled. The RDA element is other designation associated with the corporate body, and in this case, I think you can't control that term. On the other hand, "Holiness churches" in LCSH can be used as a type of corporate body, and you can put that in 368 $a.
>
> 110 2_ $a Church of God (Holiness)
> 368 $a Holiness churches $2 lcsh
> 368 $c Holiness
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 19:53:12 +0000
>> From: Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Problem with this heading?
>>
>> Adam,
>> Okay, I'll make that change when it ceases to be locked. It's good to be reminded that 368 has those subfields, some of which are for corporate bodies and some of which can be for persons.
>>
>> I do wonder about "Holiness" as a controlled vocabulary on this page under $c:
>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad368.html
>>
>> "Holiness" is an LCSH term, but could that be applicable to the name of a church? If you use Holiness in the 368 $c, you would be implying that all other churches are unholy. I just noticed the LCSH that must be used there: Holiness churches. Those are Christian churches that put especially high emphasis on Holiness and call themselves "Holiness churches." If we follow the logic of some on the list, who want all qualifications to come directly from controlled vocabulary, should the church be called "Church of God (Holiness church)"?
>> Thanks, Ted
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>
>> Ted,
>>
>> The record looks fine, with one exception: PCC policy is to prefer controlled vocabulary for terms in 368 $a $b and $c. Therefore your 368 $c should probably be:
>>
>> 368 $c Saints $2 lcsh
>>
>> --Adam
>>
>> On Wed, 27 May 2015, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 19:02:21 +0000
>>> From: Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Problem with this heading?
>>>
>>> Take a look and see.
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:59 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>
>>> Did you do the other things necessary to turn this into an RDA record?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:03 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>
>>> Thanks. I have just removed the 667 from n 97049679 (St. Dominic of Sora) on the basis of 9.19.1.2.4.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:09 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>
>>> Ted,
>>>
>>> The info you need to evaluate the AACR2 heading is in RDA. Apply the instructions (and any LC-PCC PS's that may be relevant) on this type of name to evaluate whether it's in the correct RDA form or not. Simple as that.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2015, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:36:06 +0000
>>>> From: "McDonald, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Problem with this heading?
>>>>
>>>> The list that Gary is talking about is the code he wrote into the automated script that examined hundreds of thousands of NAF records. He tried to include as many of the common occurrences in subfield c as he could (as well as the several hundred other things that the script was checking), but he could not possibly include every possible legitimate combination. In this case, it was a combination of "saint" plus another title. There are too many possible combinations of titles separated by a comma for Gary to have included them all. So when the script came across something that was not in Gary's extensive but finite list, it marked it with the 667 field indicating that a cataloger has to review it manually.
>>>>
>>>> Gary did make his script available to those who wanted to review it or use it locally. I don't have it ready to hand, but if you're interested, I'm sure he'll point you toward it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve McDonald
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:15 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>>
>>>> Gary,
>>>> Thanks. Would you tell me where that list is? I realize this is something I should probably know, but who knows, there may be someone else on the list that can profit from this, too.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a more philosophical question that may also show my ignorance. If they are not on the list, what justification can I have in saying it's "a perfectly nice RDA heading as it stands"? In other words, do we have to get those phrases onto the list, or are the criteria of an acceptable RDA heading just not that tightly defined? I'm guessing the second is the answer. But if they're not that tightly defined, where are the limits of what is acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose this problem may have come from the need to have some computer algorithm for finding authorities that needed work. It would be impossible to go through every one of the millions of authorities and decide which was not good for RDA. There had to be some "rough and ready" way for a computer to decide something needed to be flagged.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patience if these questions have been covered before on the list.
>>>>
>>>> Ted Gemberling
>>>>
>>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:57 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>>
>>>> "of Sora, Saint" and "Earl of, Saint" were not on the list of recognized subfield $c texts (this was an extensive, but finite, list), so the records were marked as requiring review. After your review, if you determine that either heading is a perfectly nice RDA heading as it stands, then all you need to do is re-code the record as RDA and remove the 667.
>>>>
>>>> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
>>>> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
>>>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
>>>> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2008.22.409
>>>>
>>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:39 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?
>>>>
>>>> I am interested in using an authorized access point in RDA for Saint Dominic of Sora. Take a look at OCLC authority record #4341369 (n 97049679). What's wrong with that? It's marked as CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA. As near as I can determine, it follows RDA 9.19.1.2.4. See in particular the example there of Arundel, Philip Howard, Earl of, Saint. Isn't that the same pattern?
>>>>
>>>> Is this an example of where I just need to "review it" and remove the 667 note, or am I really missing something here?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I just noticed that the Arundel heading can't be used, either. See n 50059009. How can it be used as an example of what to do in RDA if you can't use it?
>>>>
>>>> Ted P. Gemberling
>>>> Historical Collections Cataloger
>>>> UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B
>>>> 1720 Second Ave. South
>>>> Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013
>>>> Phone: (205)934-2461
>>>> Fax: (205)934-3545
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 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]
>>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 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]
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 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]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
******************************************************************************************************************
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
|
