Barring
need for more detail, here's reports on the 372 and 380 fields. Field
12.42 just arrived, so I included that one as well.
Gary L. Strawn,
Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern
University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
60208-2300
e-mail:
[log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax:
847/491-8306
Forsan et haec
olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat
version: 2007.22.416
From: Program for
Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:27
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] terms
for occupations in field 374
Thanks
Gary, that's really useful. It certainly highlights the need for spell-checking
in cataloging software!
Would
there be any possibility of doing the same for activity terms in 372,
please?
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard
Moore
Authority
Control Team Manager
The
British Library
Tel.:
+44 (0)1937
546806
From: Program for
Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Gary L Strawn
Sent: 22 October 2012 21:14
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] terms for occupations
in field 374
I
had a program run through LC/NACO 2012 weekly issues 1-41 (all received so far)
and total up the uses of stuff in the 374 field. In the attached, the
first column is the $2 code (or "***" if no $2), the second column is the text
from $a, and the third column is the count of occurrences.
The
program found 22,576 374 fields, with a total of 30,444 occurrences of subfield
$a. These boiled down to 4,685 distinct combinations of
$a+$2.
Make
of it what ye will.
Gary L. Strawn,
Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern
University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
60208-2300
e-mail:
[log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax:
847/491-8306
Forsan et haec
olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat
version: 2007.22.416
From: Program for
Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Brueck, Vicki
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:44 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] terms for occupations
in field 374
I
was on vacation last week and so am coming to this discussion late. Since
the discussion has centered on using LCSH plural terms versus uncontrolled
singular terms I wanted to add to the discussion that I have been experimenting
with using $2 onet terms (http://www.onetonline.org/)
in field 374. There is still the problem of plural terms but it does
usually yield much more specific occupation titles. For example a search
for a controlled term for a civil engineering professor in LCSH would be
“College teachers” or “College science teachers” but in onet you can use
“Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary”.
In
regards to time spent adding the additional 3XX fields I have taken the course
of adding anything that I find in the course of cataloging the item, or in the
search of verification that my person either is or is not the person represented
by an already created authority record. So the only part that really takes
additional time is searching for a controlled term in 372/374. Time will
tell if controlled terms are worth the additional time
spent.
I
must say that I have been frustrated by old authority records which had minimal
information with the statement “Do not confuse with …” without giving you any
information to help you in keeping the two people separated. Based on
those experiences I am more willing to spend another minute or two on an
authority record and record the additional information that I find during the
course of cataloging the work.
Thanks,
Vicki
Vicki
Brueck
Senior
Cataloger
Resource
Management Services Branch
State
Library of North Carolina
4641
Mail Service Center
Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-4641
Office:
(919) 807-7451 Fax: (919) 733-1843
E-mail
correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.
From: Program for
Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Charles Croissant
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:16
PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] terms for
occupations in field 374
We recently
completed our RDA NACO training at my library, and during that experience, one
issue came up that we would like to see more discussion
on:
Should terms
used in the 374 field of authority records to express a person’s occupation be
in the plural or singular?
In our training,
we saw examples of both singulars and plurals being used in
374.
Since such
terms, in this context, pertain to an individual, it seems sensible to use
singular nouns, such as Engineer (see NAR nb2012014836).
As I understand
it, one reason for including such terms in the 374 is that they could be used as
needed to break a conflict with another individual of the same name, by being
placed in a subfield c of the 100. In such a case, they would necessarily be
used in the singular.
On the other
hand, catalogers like to draw on controlled vocabularies, and some catalogers
have started drawing on the class-of-persons terms in the Subject Authority
File. Such class-of-persons terms are in the plural (Engineers, Architects,
Educators), so if they were ever needed for placement in a subfield c of a 100
field, they would have to be modified.
The DCM Z1 for
the 372 field contains a nice example contrasting 372 with 374, using singular
forms in the 374:
Example: 372 ## $a Poetry $a Education
Occupation used in 374: 374 ## $a Poet $a Educator
Some of us feel
this would be the preferable practice.
But this is
contradicted, it seems, in the DCM Z1 for the 374, which
states:
“Prefer
controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or MeSH, recording the source in subfield $2. For consistency, capitalize the first
term in each subfield $a. When terms do not come from a
controlled vocabulary, use a singular form.”
This gives
catalogers permission to use plurals (drawn from LCSH). Another consequence of
this statement is that it will lead to a mix of plural and singular forms in the
374 – this seems like a less-than-optimal solution.
Is LCSH the best
controlled vocabulary to use for terms for occupations? There may be other
controlled vocabularies available that are better suited to this task, in that
they use singular forms of the term.
Is there a PCC
Task Force that dealt with this issue, and concluded that using plural forms of
occupational terms is best practice? If so, perhaps someone from that group
could summarize their reasoning (it’s really hard to keep up with the large
number of documents being issued on RDA/NACO-related subjects--
)
Charles Croissant
Senior
Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
St.
Louis, MO 63108