I asked Ana about this privately on Friday. I 
don't think she will mind if I summarize her response (at least I hope not!).

She suggested that when there is no usage on the 
item being cataloged, we do not need to provide a 
670 for the "work cat." at all - we only need to 
cite the resource that was used to establish the 
name. It sounded like the major rationale for 
removing the instruction from DCMZ1 was the 
desire to lessen cataloger workload (instead of a 
minimum of two 670s we'd only need a minimum of 
one). She did say that we could continue to make 
the 670 citation anyway and we could include the 
$b "name not given" if we really wanted to, it just wouldn't be required.

Personally, I am not in favor of omitting the 670 
just because there is no usage in the item in 
hand. Having the 670 allows anyone who is 
subsequently cataloging the same item to know 
that the person in the authority record is indeed 
the person associated with that item (enhancing 
the identification function of the authority 
record). It can also give you an approximate date 
for when the person was active and an idea of the 
kind of things the person wrote about. And it is 
much simpler to tell NACO trainees that the first 
670 should always be for the "Work cat." (rather 
than having to waffle and say that *most* of the 
time you need to cite the "work cat." but sometimes you don't).

I also prefer having the "name not given" or 
equivalent text in the $b. As others have pointed 
out, a 670 without a $b is ambiguous and suggests 
that the cataloger forgot to record the usage or 
that the record was created according to an 
earlier standard when the recording of usage 
wasn't required. The newly revised NACO 
Participant's Manual says the only instance when 
the $b may be omitted in the 670 for the "work 
cat." is when the usage appears in the title.

I can understand the confusion between using 670/675.



At 10:37 AM 3/6/2006, you wrote:
>Adam, et al,
>Although Ana is out of town for a few days for 
>me to confirm, it was my understanding (from 
>CPSO's perspective) that the removal of the 
>"name not given" information from the two 
>different places in the 670 section of DCM Z1 was for two reasons:
>1) eliminate a requirement to provide a 670 
>citation to the "work cat." when that work had 
>no information to cite regarding the heading 
>(i.e., seen as extra work that is unwarranted), 
>assuming that another source would be cited to 
>support the heading/references; and
>2) eliminate the frequent questions about why a 
>citation that contained no information was coded as a 670 and not a 675.
>I'll double check with Ana when she returns, and 
>apologize in advance for the confusion,
>Dave Reser


Manon Théroux
Authority Control Librarian
Catalog Department
Yale University Library
P.O. Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240

203-432-8376 (tel)
203-432-7231 (fax)
[log in to unmask]