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  June 2015

PCCLIST June 2015

Subject:

Re: Problem with this heading?

From:

Ted P Gemberling <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:54:33 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

I agree. I think I will delete the 368 $c. It really adds nothing useful when the 368 $a Holiness churches is present. But I will wait to see if someone protests the loss of any 3XX coding corresponding to what is in the parentheses. 
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?

I like the use of "Holiness churches" in a 368, with $2 lcsh.  

Given that "(Holiness)" is actually part of the body's name, I don't know that you should have recorded that term in a 368 $c.  Doesn't that coding imply that you are in fact adding it yourself as an "other designation?"  Your 670 makes clear that the term is given as part of the body's name.  I don't think I would make a 368 for "Holiness" at all in this case.

"Holiness" might be kind of strange as a cataloger-supplied qualifier, yes, since it's so ambiguous.  But, if the only generally used term available for the theological tendency was in fact "Holiness," you might really want to use that as a qualifier to show that a church (which did NOT include "holiness" in its preferred name) was allied with that tendency.  But fortunately there are the LCSH headings "Holiness movement" and "Holiness churches" to save us from that.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?

Pete,
I put the LCSH Holiness churches in the 368 $a of Church of God (Holiness). That fits 368 $a as a "type of corporate body." As John Hostage pointed out, (Holiness) is actually part of the corporate body's name, not a qualification added by a cataloger: http://www.cogh.net/

I suppose one could say it's a qualification put on by the body itself, following its own language, not our controlled vocabulary. I would find "Holiness" kind of strange as a cataloger-supplied qualification. Would that imply a judgment that other Churches of God are unholy? 

At any rate, Holiness churches is available as an LCSH term for churches that identify with the Holiness movement. 

Ted Gemberling

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?

Thanks, Richard.

It is certainly nice to see that a problem has already been proactively solved for us.

I do still think that if there were no such LCSH as "Holiness movement" I would not use a $2 lcsh in the 368 for "Holiness," though.  It seems like it could have unfortunate effects somewhere down the line in the linked data world.

Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?

Pete

I've tended to be fairly liberal in my approach to adpating LCSH for NARs. I don't think "Holiness" would be wrong, as it's clearly the concept that the movement is laying claim to. However, if "Holiness movement" is also LCSH then I agree it's the appropriate term in this case.

Regards
Richard  

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: 03 June 2015 00:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Problem with this heading?

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

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

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