In answer to a question from a PCC member, here's a bit of context:

Adam is referring to a document that members of the PCC Operations Committees will discuss when they meet on Thursday and Friday at the Library of Congress.  The agenda and documents are posted on the PCC Web site (

N-2, N-3, etc. refer to NACO-related issues in the Document 1 chart.  Discussions at the OpCo meetings will open conversations on the topics, and will inform future decision-making processes.  

Carolyn R. Sturtevant
BIBCO Coordinator
COIN/Cooperative Programs Section
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540-4320
voice: 202.707.4551
fax: 202.252.2082
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Comments on OpCo Document 1

Document 1

N-2: Yes. At very least the policy should be to permit libraries to add these fields, but I would like to see it highly encouraged because the promise of RDA and of these separate fields in a Web-based environment will only actually be achieved if we use these elements.

N-3: Yes. 1) personal names that are lacking dates or fuller form of name that would be present in RDA. 2) Maybe uniform titles with language qualifiers that were set up under AACR2 (e.g., with two-language qualifiers or with "Polyglot" as qualifier).  3) Personal names with AACR2 qualifiers that aren't used in RDA (e.g., titles associated with a person used to break a conflict).  4) I think a task force needs to be convened to look into all possible categories.

N-4: There is no LCRI 22.11A in Cataloger's Desktop.  So not sure what this question is about.  RDA 9.15 Field of Activity: Field of activity of the person is a core element for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.  RDA 9.16 Profession or
Occupation: Profession or occupation is a core element for a person whose name consists of a phrase or appellation not conveying the idea of a person.  Since these two elements are CORE in this situation, I don't see what the issue is - you must record the element for such a name.  I think it should be required to record it as a qualifier in the access point for the name.  Optionally it can also be recorded in the separate MARC fields for Field of Activity (372) or Profession/Occupation (374).

N-4a: YES. I think it is about time that we establish a unique identifier for each person, regardless of whether the name itself is differentiated. 
This would allow catalogers to control headings in OCLC and when one the headings is changed, the records would be automatically flipped.  It would allow different diacritics on the headings as well so that they wouldn't all be flipped to just one form of name by authority vendors/control processes.  However, it presents a few issues that also will need to be worked out: 1) we'd have to allow 100s on separate NARs to normalize to the same string - this is currently not allowed. 2) For authority processing by vendors, this may be one instance where it would be wise and helpful to include the LCCN identifier in bibliographic headings in the subfield $0.  Otherwise, it's not clear how a vendor would be able to match to the correct authority record for the person.

N-5: Yes, the guidance is helpful.  Note RDA 11.7 is a CORE element: Other designation associated with the corporate body is a core element for a body with a name that does not convey the idea of a corporate body.

N-7a: 1) Allow if needed for serial cataloging.  2) Allow but don't require. What would the relationship designator for this relationship be? 
Not sure if one-way or reciprocal links should be the way to do it, but don't we now pretty much always do reciprocal?  3) No, I think there should be authorities for each conference.  Makes it possible to control them and avoids differences in qualifiers that I've seen for the same conference (e.g., places given in different or incorrect forms).

N-8: If not a policy, then at least some helpful guidelines about which additions to use.

N-9: Easier to continue the current practice, and it's in accord with RDA options.  If the fuller form is not included in the access point though, it should definitely be recorded in the separate element (MARC 378) once that field is approved by MARBI.

N-10: Continue current practice in AACR2 of adding both dates and fuller form of initials when they are known.  Allow catalogers to use their judgment to apply the option to add a fuller form of name even if there is no need to distinguish between access points.  If not added to the access point, at least record it in the separate MARC field 378 once MARBI establishes it.

N-10a: Strongly encourage catalogers to add it.  Having it will make all sorts of interesting searches and limits possible that we can't do now.

N-11: My preference is to give fuller form when that information is known. 
Or allow catalogers to repeat the field, giving the short form in one and 
the longer form in the second.   I also want to see more guidance in 
documentation on recording questionable or approximate dates than is currently available in the MARC format, as well as when to use subfield $2.

N-12a: Encourage catalogers to give these fields, otherwise the promise of RDA will not be achieved.  Probably best to include at least the elements that are CORE in RDA, even if the access point itself has the additions recorded in the separate elements.

N-13: For elements that have potential to be added to access points to break conflicts, the punctuation/capitalization of the separate element should make it simple for on-the-fly additions to the access point.  So if the qualifier in the access point should be capitalized, I think the separate element should be.  This is why the examples in RDA are capitalized for the elements that are recorded when needed to distinguish entities that have the same name.

N-14: It would be helpful to have a policy that we all follow.  Otherwise it will be harder to share bibliographic records.

N-15: Just today I had a case where I needed to repeat 374 to give terms found in two separate sources with the URL for those sources:

374  Actor $u
374  Comedian $u

1) Probably would be helpful to have a best practice.  2-3) Probably best to repeat the $a unless separate $u or $v or $2 are needed.

Actually, this brings up the issue that I would like to have some best practice recommendations about when to give $u, $v, or $2 (that is, when should we use a term from a controlled vocabulary?  Does it matter that some vocabularies would give a term in the plural (e.g. LCSH: Actors) when it appears that the term in RDA ought to be in the singular?

N-16: 1) No. 2-3) Yes, but some guidance about when to choose one or the other would be helpful to catalogers.  See my example above in N-15. 
I gave the URL instead of saying $v Wikipedia, viewed on May 2, 2011.  Is one better than the other?

N-17: prefer fuller info that can be verified later on if need be.  1) Date of pub. would be needed to differentiate manifestations with same title.  Best to just give it so that it's available from the beginning. 2) helpful, but perhaps not so important. 3) Yes, this is important to know. 
4-5) I'd prefer the most info, but could live without pagination.  We need to train catalogers to make the best decisions about what to give if not all the bits are required.

N-18: For Field of Activity (9.15) there is guidance needed on what type of noun to record.  For example, which is correct?: "Stamp collector" 
(which is what is currently in RDA as an example) or "Stamp collecting". 
That is, should the activity be recorded as a class of persons type term, which is what would be better to add as an addition to an access point, or as an actual "field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged"?  In other words, do the examples in RDA need to be revised.  Which of these two forms of access points would we

Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collector)
Lang, Peter $c (Stamp collecting)

I think the former rather than the latter, but in many of the test RDA records I was seeing terms that weren't for classes of persons.

Other examples in RDA that would need changing if a class of persons-type heading is not what should be recorded (possible changes given to the right of the arrow):

Anglo-Norman poet  -->  Poetry writing  [??]
Crow Indian chief  -->  Crow Indian chiefdom   [??]
Biblical prophet   -->  Biblical prophecy  [??]
Owner of Dance news  -->  Dance journalism
Fire-eater         -->  Fire-eating
Lesbian rights activist --> Lesbian rights activism Charity quiltmaker -->  Quiltmaking Paper airplane hobbyist --> Paper airplane design Star trek fan site webmaster --> Star trek website management

1) I think we should leave this to cataloger judgment, but for me the dividing line really is does the person make a living doing the thing or not?  If not, I would say that it belongs in Field of Activity.  If yes, then it's a Profession/Occupation.  In case of doubt, use judgment or code as Field of Activity.  2) Not opposed to this, if the JSC is willing. 
Again the key issue for me is what kind of noun to record - Stamp collector or Stamp collecting?  Astrologist or Astrology?  Cinematographer or Cinematography?  3) No, this is too narrow.  Many people are known primarily for things that they might not be paid for (e.g. political activists, amateur musicians, athletes, Biblical prophets <G>).

N-20: YES, we should encourage their use and we should develop a means for catalogers to suggest additional terms as they encounter the need for them.

N-21: YES, we should do reciprocal records with reciprocal designators. 
Here are examples I did:

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) 500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 530 _0 $i Remade as (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001) $w r 530 _0 $i Sequel: $a Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture) $w r

100 1_ Boulle, Pierre, $d 1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) $w r 530 _0 $i Adapted as a motion picture (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001)

130 _0 Beneath the planet of the apes (Motion picture) 530 _0 $i Sequel to: $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) $w r

130 _0 Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 2001) 500 1_ $i Motion picture adaptation of (work): $a Boulle, Pierre, $d 1912-1994. $t Plane`te des singes 530 _0 $i Remake of (work): $a Planet of the apes (Motion picture : 1968) $w r

N-22: 1) No. 2) Yes. 3) Yes

N-23: 1) Give the 4XX and allow the cataloger to give the 5XX if they wish.

N-24: 1) Allow but use judgment. Can catalogers give a reference with different additions instead of changing the 100?  2)? Since there aren't family names in AACR2, I don't understand this question.

N-25: No, but they should be allowed, particularly for archival/special collections needs.

N-26: No, as long as the information is readable and clear.  RDA examples are in complete sentences without abbreviations.  If other formats are allowable, the PCC can give some in an PCC Policy Statement.

N-27: 1) It sure would be helpful for record sharing if we all followed the same policies for naming expressions.

N-28: 1) Yes, I think that we want members to contribute authority records in which the language of cataloging is English.  I guess I don't have a problem with equivalent records co-existing, but it raises a lot of issues.  If a library adds an authority record with language of cataloging (040 $b) of French, then the qualifiers and notes and other words used in access points (e.g. approximately) will be in French.  My library will not be able to use that authority and we certainly don't want an English-language of cataloging bib. record to be linked to it.  So we would have to clone it into an English-language record.  Maybe this isn't as big an issue as I think it is, but if the PCC wants to pursue this, then they will need a task group and will have to carefully consider all of the issues, particularly as they relate to authority control.

B-1: Yes

B-2: Not sure.  There really is a need for careful training, as evidenced by the many odd and incorrect things that can be seen in RDA records created during the test period.  I'd personally like to see PCC require some RDA training, but not sure how this could be administered and what that training would need to consist of.  No doubt, Judy Kuhagen and her test review group have a good idea of the kinds of errors that were consistently made during the test.

B-4: Not opposed to this if the training documentation is clear about what to do.

WF-1: Institutions should be allowed to do this themselves if they wish, or report to LC if they are unsure of correct subject usage. 680 would mean a displayable note to users, so I'm not opposed.  Actually, even better would be a different subject usage field that was meant to publicly display.  How about new field 685 Subject Usage Note?  Then you wouldn't need to input the term "SUBJECT USAGE:" in front of the note.  And the field would be nicely complementary to the 008/15 Subject Usage byte.

WF-2: Encourage use. Expand use of 034 to subject authority records, and also to non-jurisdictional entities (e.g., geog. coordinates for University of Washington could be recorded).