One thing we’re still getting to grips with is the number of different ways in which the same piece of information can be recorded. For example, the name of a superior body might be recorded as part of a subordinate body’s preferred name (18.104.22.168), as an associated institution (11.5) and/or by a relationship to a hierarchical superior (K.4.3). At the moment we are not duplicating in 373 and 510 the name of a superior body that is already recorded in a preferred or variant name under 22.214.171.124 or 126.96.36.199, partly on the grounds that a “machine” could be programmed to look for it anywhere in the record, but mainly on the grounds of efficiency.
Where K.4.3 is concerned, I agree in principle with the minority view of the Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues (N-23): “In order to ensure that the machine can reliably and consistently collocate subordinate bodies, the presence of the 510 field is necessary, even if to a human being it appears to be redundant”. However, given the paucity of these relationships currently on the authority file, I found it hard to justify the extra time spent, so we don’t currently do it. I appreciate this is a self-defeating argument…
Affiliation, and Associated Institution, recorded in 373 are a little vague, and it might be useful to have more specific sub-elements and extra MARC subfields (for as long as we are using MARC). These might be for institutions where a person works, institutions where a person studies, etc., but then this too duplicates possible relationships in 510.
I’d be interested to know how others are approaching this.
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: 30 July 2013 22:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Place of death vs Affiliation
Agreed. Similarly, lots of people are born or die in hospitals, but that's not what we want to name in 370 (or 373).
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Gary L Strawn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
All this true stuff said, let us not forget that most organizations should be treated as such, and not as places. (In other words, just because someone works at University X doesn't mean that University X should be in the 370 field—though the place in which University X is located might be.) To put it all into perspective, here's a fun case which, in all fairness, is probably just simply rather than misconceived. Alhough (of course!) this 370 isn't supported by information elsewhere in the record, it's still a good guess that the person works here, and wasn't born here:
[log in to unmask]" width=484>
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428
I think it’s OK to use Karlag (Concentration Camp) in 370. I have an email from Dave Reser (who I hope won’t mind my taking his name in vain) from February 2012, during the course of a discussion of 370 and non-jurisdictional place names, in which he says:
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455