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 * > ****************************************************************************** >