Print

Print


My understanding is that SACO libraries do not need to propose any 
"backdoor headings", that is, headings that are only needed for the 
reference structure in LCSH and that would normally be free-floating and 
not require an authority record.  A simple example would be the broader 
heading Rivers--England as the BT on a proposal for a specific river in 
England.  CPSO staff will establish authority records for backdoor 
headings.  Any other types of broader or related term headings must also 
be proposed separately by SACO libraries.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Moore, Richard wrote:

> It's been my understanding that we should submit SACO proposals for broader terms of the heading being proposed, when these are not already established. Has this changed? It's what we were trained to do when we started making SACO proposals, and we've been doing it for 12 years ...
>
> Regards
> Richard
>
> _________________________
> Richard Moore
> Authority Control Team Manager
> The British Library
>
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dinin, Ken
> Sent: 02 July 2007 13:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Subject authority records for validation purposes
>
> When I created authority record sh2006001656 for: Skupina 42 (Group of artists), I was notified by CPSO to create the broader term authority: Art, Czech--20th century (sh2006002697) for inclusion in the Skupina record.
>
> ============================
> Kenneth Dinin
> Senior Cataloger
> Thomas J. Watson Library
> The Metropolitan Museum of Art
> 1000 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY  10028-0198
> -------------------------------------------
> Voice:     (212) 650-2440
> Fax:         (212) 570-3847
> E-mail:    [log in to unmask]
> ============================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ronald A Goudreau
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:27 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Subject authority records for validation purposes
>
>
> Sherman,
>
> We do not require that you make the authority records for the broader terms, we normally do that in Subject Headings Editorial Team.
>
>
>
> Ron Goudreau
> Editor of Subject Headings
> Cataloging Policy and Support Office
> Library of Congress
> Washington DC 20540
> [log in to unmask]
> 202.707.5865
> email: [log in to unmask]
> voice mail: 202.707.5865
>
>
>>>> Sherman Clarke <[log in to unmask]> 6/29/2007 11:23 AM >>>
> Dear CPSO and PCCLIST colleagues:
>
> In line with this project, we were wondering if new subject proposals should routinely also include a validation record for broader-term references. The heading we proposed:
>
> 010 __ |a sh2007004783
> 040 __ |a NNU |b eng |c DLC
> 150 __ |a Cena Jindřicha Chalupeckého [proposed] 450 __ |a Jindřich Chalupecký Award 550 __ |w g |a Art |x Awards |z Czech Republic
>
> Should we routinely do a proposal for Art -- Awards -- [place] or similar BTs? We did this time. I note that SCM:SH H200 says that editorial staff will create records for generic terms divided by specific places or heading-subdivisions. If you can do it algorithmically, it probably makes sense to automate these validation records.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Sherman Clarke
> New York University Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CPSO <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:28 am
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Subject authority records for validation purposes
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>> Message may be forwarded to other lists as appropriate
>>  *********************************************
>>
>>  As announced in the CDS bulletin of May 25 2007 <  CPSO has begun a
>
>> project to create subject authority records for every subject string
>
>> appearing in bibliographic records to aid Library of Congress
>> catalogers, and external users in the validation of LCSH subject
>> heading strings.   Effective immediately subject authority records
> are
>> being created for valid subject strings obtained from bibliographic
>> records.  Formerly, these subject strings did not prompt the creation
>
>> of subject authority records, because they contained free-floating
>> subdivision[s].
>>
>>  Some of these records are being created manually by the Cataloging
>> Policy and Support Office staff, and some will be generated by
>> machine, but all of them will be reviewed before distribution occurs.
>
>> We anticipate at least 200 records per month at the start of this
>> project.  These records will NOT be printed in the annual editions of
>
>> LCSH (the "red books").  The records can be identified by the legend
>
>> "[proposed validation record]" appearing at the end of the 1xx
> string.
>>  This legend will be removed once the records have been approved and
>
>> distributed.  Additionally each record will contain a 667 field with
>
>> this data: "Record generated for validation purposes."
>>
>>  Send questions or comments to [log in to unmask]
>>
>
> **************************************************************************
>
> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
>
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 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] : 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.
>
> *************************************************************************