Print

Print


hi,
i can understand why LC might want to avoid adding another
field to be consider in creating NAR's, as practical matter.
but what would be so wrong to allow NACO libraries to add
680 fields, which could display in OPACS, and, therefore
prevent the numerous questions about why dead people haven't
been closed. for example, would be so terrible about adding
a 680 like this to the NAR?:
680    $i Composer, conductor, and pianist. Dates: 1918-1990.

   1  010     n  50007704 z no 98043992
   2  040     DLC c DLC d DLC
   3  005     19980217130749.9
   4  100 1   Bernstein, Leonard, d 1918-
   5  400 1   Amber, Lenny, d 1918-
   6  400 1   Bernstain, Leonard, d 1918-
   7  670     His Sonata for clarinet and piano, c1943.
   8  670     Baker, 6th ed. b (Bernstein, Leonard; b. 8-25-1918; pseud.:
Lenny Amber)
   9  670     Haydn, J. Messa si bemol mazhor, Hob. XXII no. 14 [SR]
1978?:
b label (Leonard Bernstain, conductor)
  10  670     Washington post, 10-15-90: b p. 1 (Leonard Bernstein; d. New
York, 10-14-90)

--r

A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
co-owner: [log in to unmask]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Anthony R. Franks wrote:

> As a purely personal matter of opinion, and not at all reflecting the
> position of the Library of Congress on this matter, I will share with you
> the thought that struck me this morning, in the shower:
>
> If information is relevant to the heading, it goes into a 670 field; if
> it's not relevant to the heading, it goes into a 675 field.
>
> To paraphrase Judy Kuhagen speaking about another NAR-related matter,
> introducing yet another field and set of tagging into NAR production is
> not cataloging simplification.
>
> *****************************************************************************
>  *                         Anthony Franks                                  *
>  *                         Library of Congress                             *
>  *                         [log in to unmask]                                    *
>  *                                                                        *
>  * A personal opinion not the official position of the Library of Congress *
> ******************************************************************************
>