Print

Print


From DCM Z1, the basis of NACO practice. For field 378:

 

“Best practice: Encode the fuller form of name in the 378 field when this information is readily available, even if the same information is already present in the 100 field.”

 

No limitations that I can see, although the practice is generally to leave out the surname, I’m sure the full form of a surname could be included if it was abbreviated in the authorized access point.

 

Steven Arakawa

Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation 

Catalog & Metada Services  

Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University 

P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240    

(203) 432-8286 [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morris S Levy
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 378 field

 

Good morning.  I've noticed that catalogers have been using different standards for what can be encoded in the 378 field.  Some use it only if the preferred form includes initials, e.g.:

 

100 1  Serre, J.-M.

378     ǂq Jean-Marc

 

100 1  Semini, C. F. ǂq (Carlo Florindo)

378     ǂq Carlo Florindo

 

I've also seen records in which the 378 includes baptismal names, middle names, and maiden names not found in the preferred form:

 

100 1  Danning, Christian

378     ǂq Sophus Christian

 

100 1  Oakland, Jane

378     ǂq Jane Caroline

 

100 1  Johnes, May

378     ǂq May Harris

 

The 378 field isn't mapped to a specific rule in RDA but the most likely candidate is 9.5.1.3 which seems to follow the more liberal approach to what can be recorded.  I recognize that the field is optional but my LC reviewer in October preferred limiting its use.  Is there now a best practice for how the 378 field is used?

Thanks,

Morris

 

*********************************

 

Morris S. Levy

Senior Music Cataloger

Northwestern University Music Library

1970 Campus Drive

Evanston, Illinois 60208

Phone: 847-491-3487

Fax: 847-467-7574

[log in to unmask]