That is, the three 046 fields, with sources in $v.
From: Moore, Richard
Sent: 07 May 2014 14:54
To: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Subject: RE: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates
That sounds like good practice, and I’m going to recommend it to our cataloguers when this arises.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hideyuki Morimoto
Sent: 07 May 2014 14:06
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates
As to the last example cited:
046: : |f 1873 |g 1968
046: : |f 1874
046: : |f 18740330 |g 19680911
100:1 : |d 1873-1968
NNC added these 046s in:
010 __ n 82084004
040 __ DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd OCoLC ǂd NNC
046 __ ǂf 1873 ǂg 1968 ǂv 20th cent. Chi. writers
046 __ ǂf 1874 ǂv Hubei ge ming zhi zhi lu, 2011
046 __ ǂf 18740330 ǂg 19680911 ǂv Baidu bai ke WWW
site, viewed April 25, 2014
100 1_ Zhang, Nanxian, ǂd 1873-1968
following LC's instruction that NNC had received earlier in conjunction with an originally-scheduled live NACO webinar:
a question from NNC: Is there a best practice for dealing
with conflicting dates for coding
under authority field 046s? A case
for re-coding from AACR2 to RDA (no
change of 100) is:
coded AACR2
LCCN: n 50062066
100 1 Honda, Katsuichi, ǂd 1933-
various pre-existing 670s:
b. 11/1931 (registered b.d.)
b. 1/28/1932
b. 4/28/1933
LC's response:
ǂf [1931-11,1932-01-28,1933-04-28] ǂ2 edtf
But as PSD advised, it might be better to
make three 046s in this case and add
justification at the end of each one:
ǂf 1931-11 ǂv Source …
ǂf 19320128 ǂv Source …
ǂf 19330428 ǂv Source …
===========================================================
Hideyuki Morimoto
Japanese Cataloger
C.V. Starr East Asian Library
300 Kent Hall, mail code 3901
Columbia University Voice: +1-212-854-1510
1140 Amsterdam Ave. Fax: +1-212-662-6286
New York, NY 10027-7034
U.S.A. Electronic Mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
===========================================================
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Moore, Richard <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Speaking as someone whose eyes hurt daily from testing enormous test samples from Gary’s program, I can say that it’s very good.
Regards
Richard
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
Sent: 06 May 2014 16:41
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates
As I said, in this message I was only talking about firm dates; the program in question doesn't make any attempt to deal with period of activity. There will soon be a call for volunteers to help evaluate the results of this very program.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stanley Elswick - NOAA Federal
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates
I would think a program to generate 046 fields from 670s would often result in incorrect dates. Many times a person is published posthumously and such a program would generate a period of activity going on past his/her death, right?
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Gary L Strawn <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
This response springs from an issue raised during the discussion of "active" dates but it actually deals only with firm dates.
Interesting question, Richard. Some will know that in order to test a module that may be used to generate 046 fields from information in the 670 fields, the authority loader we use here has begun to compare the 046 present in incoming LC/NACO authority records with information pulled by the new module from the 670s, and to report the discrepancies. (Yes, there are plenty of these.) As it happens, this module refuses to proceed if the authority record contains 046 and 100 $d and the years in the two disagree, but until now I haven't actually used this for anything.
I just had a test program run through the most recently issued names file (14.17), pulling out records with 046 fields and comparing them to the 100 $d. The program found 2,945 incoming non-delete records with 046 fields containing either $f or $g (or both). Of these, the program was able to handle 2,727 successfully. Of the 24 records rejected for one cause or another, 16 were rejected because information in the 046 field disagrees with information in 100 $d. Make of that proportion what you will. Here are more examples than anyone will need (I've deliberately eliminated the text from 100 $a so we can focus on the numbers and not worry about side-issues):
046: : |f 1900 |g 1969
100:1 : |d 1900-1968
670 field: died 1968
046: : |f 18200929 |g 19080113
100:1 : |d 1820-1909
670 fields show both 1908 and 1909
046: : |f 18991018 |g 19781029
100:1 : |d 1889-1978
670 fields have 1889 everywhere
046: : |f 1922 |g 1965
100:1 : |d 1921-1965
670 fields have 1922 everywhere
046: : |f 1987
100:1 : |d 1986-
670 field says born 1987
046: : |f 1946
100:1 : |d 1904-
670 field says 1904
046: : |f 19480708
100:1 : |d 1965-
670 field says July 8, 1965
046: : |f 10600927
100:1 : |d 1960-
670 field says Sept. 27, 1960
046: : |f 19160811 |g 20110522
100:1 : |d 1916-1985
670 fields only say 1985
046: : |f 18590109 |g 18380817
100:1 : |d 1859-1938
"For yourself, sir, should be as old as I am, if like a crab you could go backward."
(Sorry; couldn't resist.)
As far as I can tell, most of the above stem from one kind of operator error or another, either simple typographical errors, or perhaps the eye skipping to the wrong part of the record or even another record. Errors of this type will continue to happen regardless of legislation. (But it does seem clear that this test needs to be added to the authority loader as well, so that typographical errors can be corrected.)
At least one of the records, though, involves a disagreement about a date in sources, and having a clear statement directing people what to put into the 046 would be a very good thing. Here's another record with the same condition; in this case, the person constructing the record attempted to describe the problem, instead of resolving it (in the original record, each of these 046 fields also has subfield $v):
046: : |f 1873 |g 1968
046: : |f 1874
046: : |f 18740330 |g 19680911
100:1 : |d 1873-1968
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Active" dates
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?
--
Stanley Elswick
NOAA Central Library
301.713.2607 x138
The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects only my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://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]<mailto:[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<http://www.bl.uk/>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://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]<mailto:[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
