Print

Print


Deborah

 

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that I don’t think they need match.

 

An authorized access point needs to be stable, for the avoidance of BFM in catalogues that don’t update globally from authorities. Elements recorded discretely (e.g. in 046) are designed to work in a linked data environment where this isn’t a problem, and even in the current environment, changes to them don’t cause problems for databases.

 

Discrete elements in other MARC fields often don’t correspond to their analogue in the authorized access point, for example occupations recorded in 374 can be more extensive than the single occupation recorded in the access point, and expressed in different terms.

 

I think if we had recorded a period of activity in the access point, and later discovered dates of birth and death, we would want to record the latter in the 046, even though NACO would not want us to change the access point.

 

Against this, maybe it would be confusing in some way if 046 and 100 $d did not match. Maybe it’s something on which PSD could give an opinion?

 

Regards

Richard  

_________________________

Richard Moore

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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: 02 May 2014 15:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

As many of my fellow rare book catalogers know, I am very bothered by inaccurate "active" (previously, "fl.") dates, and have always preferred adding century dates rather than specific years. I've forborne making changes to authority records, however, although will reconsider when the active dates are seriously misleading.

 

My real question is: Must the dates in the 046 match the dates in the AAP? It seems to me that they need not, but would like clarification.

 

Thanks,

Deborah

 

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2014 11:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

Ted

 

I think a discrepancy of 30 years would constitute a material inaccuracy worth correcting.

 

Regards

Richard

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: 30 April 2014 14:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

Amy and Richard,

I appreciate your concern about changes to active dates. One reason why accuracy is somewhat of a concern to me is that my library is, to some extent, a library of the history of printing. A discrepancy of 5 years or more bothers me. I suppose one could say that being real accurate only becomes necessary if there were two different printers/publishers with similar names. I  got an off-list message from someone who discovered a discrepancy of about 30 years. I would think in a case like that, you would want to investigate whether it was a father and son with the same name. That’s a pretty common occurrence in old printed books.

 

So a discrepancy of more than a few years suggests you may have the wrong person.

Thanks, Ted

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

I’d like to second Richard on being wary in changing active dates.  Some years ago, there was extensive discussion on this list about whether to allow the addition of death dates to authorized access points with open dates.  Many people argued that this would create too much work maintaining bibliographic records.  Now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. One point to consider is whether a user would consider an authorized access point to be wrong or inaccurate. The public noticed when there were no death dates for famous dead people, and we did well to change that policy. A difference of a few years in “active” dates for an obscure author is unlikely to attack attention. Catalogers’ energies are better focused on new authority records and the maintenance of bibliographic records than on such finessing of existing authority records.

 

Amy

 

Amy Turner

 

Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator

Duke University Libraries

 

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

I agree with Bob on the formulation. “Approximately” isn’t incorrect in active dates, but I think it’s usually redundant.

 

I’d be wary of changing active dates; only if they were wildly inaccurate would the access point be “wrong in form or fact”, and a change be allowable under NACO policy. Otherwise an access point would change every time someone found a publication one year outside the span of active dates. It’s useful to record the new data in an additional 670 field. I don’t know how PCC would feel about amending the 046 – that might be allowable, although then it wouldn’t match the access point.

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

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 Robert Maxwell
Sent: 29 April 2014 19:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

I’d say use your judgment on whether to change the authorized access point or not. I agree with Amy that “approximately” is probably implied in the nature of activity dates for any person (not just publishers). It isn’t incorrect to say “active approximately 1830-approximately 1835” but I think it looks odd and would probably just use “active 1830-1835”.

 

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 Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Active" dates

 

Bob,

It sounds like you and Amy both believe the “approximately” should be unnecessary for publishers and that you only need to change the dates if you find some significantly later or earlier than the range. Could you agree with that?

Thanks, Ted

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

I’m  glad you clarified this. It seems to me publication/printing dates on printed books are excellent for activity dates for printers and publishers, since the activity in question is the production of the book itself. For authors/contributors whose works/expressions are contained in published resources, however, the activity (creation of the work or expression) took place at a different time from the publication of the book, sometimes quite a long time previously. I’m not saying publication dates can’t be used as evidence for activity dates of authors/contributors, just that we need to be careful about it and think about what the “activity” was.

 

As for whether to change activity dates in authorized access points when new evidence arises expanding the period of activity, in my opinion it’s fine, though I probably wouldn’t if the change was only a year or two either way. I do think that if evidence for a birth or death date surfaces, then the activity dates should be replaced by that.

 

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 Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Active" dates

 

It just occurred to me that I should disclose something. The authority I’m creating now is for a publisher. Maybe that’s a peculiar instance where the uncertainty of dates would be higher than with authors. Perhaps we can often be fairly confident an author wrote only one thing in one year, even without a reference source.

Ted

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates

 

I wanted to run this by people to see if they agree.

 

It seems to me that if we are basing an “active” date on the bibliographic records in OCLC, rather than some reference source, they should always be “approximately.” It would seem risky to do otherwise since it may be that an item with a date before or after the date range may not be cataloged yet.

 

On the other hand, I have revised “active” dates when I cataloged a book one year later than the ending date. Do you think that if “approximately” is included, that’s unnecessary? I can believe it might be for a difference of one year, but a difference of 5 would seem to call for revision. It gives a seriously misleading impression of the person’s work.  

 

Ted P. Gemberling

Historical Collections Cataloger

UAB Lister Hill Library, rm. 234B

1720 Second Ave. South

Birmingham, Ala. 35294-0013

Phone: (205)934-2461

Fax: (205)934-3545

 


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

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

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

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

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

Think before you print


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

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

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

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

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

Think before you print


 
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print