Print

Print


​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]
===========================================================






On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Moore, Richard <[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]] *On Behalf Of *Gary L Strawn
> *Sent:* 06 May 2014 16:41
> *To:* [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]   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] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Stanley Elswick - NOAA Federal
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:16 AM
> *To:* [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]>
> 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]   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 *Moore, Richard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2014 2:17 AM
> *To:* [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
>  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
>