There are a lot of “ambiguous entities” (SHM H 405; MARC Authorities Appendix D) that have a geographic aspect to them, including cemeteries and concentration camps.  When recording a place of birth or death or other associated place, including a place of burial, it makes sense to use 370 for that.  I wouldn’t want to treat such a location as an affiliated group!  RDA doesn’t have specific elements for all the kinds of places one might want to record, nor does it need to, just as it doesn’t have specific elements for all the kinds of dates related to a person, body, or work that one might want to record for specialized purposes.  By the same token, MARC doesn’t have specific subfields for all those elements.  In some cases, we have to use more generic elements or subfields and give the details in a 670.

 

But this thread started a week ago with a question about a museum or school where an artist worked.  That seems to me to belong clearly in 373.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //

Langdell Hall 194 //

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] question about use of 373 versus 370 in authority records

 

This is actually something that seems a bit up in the air still. The trouble is 370 is the only place we can record where a person was born or died. If they died in a concentration camp, for example, we could certainly record that they were “affiliated with” the camp in 373, but we also need to be able to record that that was the place the person died. Other examples might include an event happening while on an expedition, or in a wagon train, or on a ship at sea (though of course in that case I suppose you could record “Atlantic Ocean” or something like that.) I guess camps of different kinds are the most obvious “places” that are considered corporate bodies. Camps are often (usually?) in places that don’t have a specific geographic name aside from the name of the camp.

 

See for example n  80058472 (Farkas, István, ǂd 1887-1944) and n 2002055629 (Ginz, Petr, ǂd 1928-1944).

 

Actually, on a related note, I’d like to be able to record where a person is buried. The genealogist in me is coming out I admit, but it seems to me that place of burial can be useful information for identifying a person, particularly if you don’t know where a person actually died. Would this require a rule revision or can we do this under current RDA and MARC? Is the cemetery a “place” (370, so perhaps 370 $f?) or an affiliation (373)? It hardly seems like an organization a person is affiliated with but maybe …

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Horne, Carl Stanley
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 6:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: question about use of 373 versus 370 in authority records

 

Hi Linda,

Yes, I believe that the 370 field is used only for geographic names.  The wording about “affiliation” that you cite is fuzzy, I agree.  I think that the lack of precision was likely deliberate, to allow this attribute (recorded in the 373 field) to be interpreted broadly.  For example, when I did the NACO Names Course at St. Xavier University some miles south of your place, I suggested that it would make sense to use that field in the names of Sisters who were presidents of the college/university to record the institution’s name but also the name of their religious order.

Carl

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Linda Dausch
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: question about use of 373 versus 370 in authority records

 

Good morning,

I am wondering whether to use the 370 or the 373 field when coding for a museum or school where an artists worked at one time. Is the 370 field to be strictly used for geographic locations and not for other types of places?

 

I am finding this RDA instruction about affiliation as a group a bit confusing:

9.13.1.1

Scope

An affiliation is a group with which a person is affiliated or has been affiliated through employment, membership, cultural identity, etc.

 

 

Feedback appreciated,

Linda

 

Linda S. Dausch

Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian

NACO Program/Authorities Liaison

Chicago Public Library

Technical Services/Catalog Unit

400 S. State St., 3S-12

Chicago, IL 60605

tel. 312-747-4652

[log in to unmask]

www.chipublib.org