Print

Print


The reason for putting "Professor" in a 374 for a library not invested in
controlled vocabularies would be to be able to list "Professor" as an
Occupation facet term.  If it appears only in 100 $c, there'd be no easy
way to determine what facet category the term belongs to. To enable that,
the uncontrolled term in the $c would need to match an uncontrolled term in
374 categorized by the MARC field tag.

Stephen

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Here's a fast track revision that was part of the February 2015 update to
> the RDA Toolkit (found on page 7 of http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/
> 6JSC-Sec-14.pdf).  The second sentence is the new one added to this
> instruction:
>
> 11.7.1.4
>
> Record the type of corporate body in a language preferred by the agency
> creating the data. Select terms from a standard list of names of types of
> corporate body, if available. If there is no equivalent term for the type
> of corporate body in a language preferred by the agency, or in case of
> doubt, record the type of corporate body in the official language of the
> corporate body.
>
> This is the first time I think in RDA that it refers to a controlled list
> of terms to be recorded as an attribute, other than the instructions on
> recording language of a person/family/corporate body or expression, and the
> script(s) used to express the language content (6.11.1.3, 9.14.1.3,
> 10.8.1.3, 11.8.1.3, and 7.13.2.3).  I don't know why type of corporate body
> gets this additional instruction to use a standard list of terms but not
> profession/occupation and field of activity.
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Stephen Hearn wrote:
>
>  Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:11:29 -0600
>> From: Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Best practices in updating authority records
>>
>> Maybe I'm overreading it, but RDA does specify "Profession or Occupation"
>> as a type of term appropriate for distinguishing one person from another.
>> To me, this implies an expectation, or at least an option, that the term
>> will be categorized as indicating a profession or occupation.  MARC
>> authorities accommodate that by providing the 374 field where the RDA
>> category is expressed in the tag value.  I can imagine other ways a term
>> could be categorized, including a term added only to an authorized access
>> point; and but MARC is what we use.  I agree that RDA does not require
>> this
>> kind of categorization; but it does encourage us to make it possble. If
>> RDA
>> did not intend to distinguish different qualifying information by
>> categories, then I'm not sure why the 3XX "RDA fields" were added to the
>> authority format.
>>
>> What is missing from RDA itself is any instruction to use controlled
>> vocabularies to express the attributes of persons.  That comes from PCC.
>> I'm all for using controlled vocabularies; but I can also see a case for
>> using the 374 to categorize an uncontrolled term which appears in a 100
>> $c.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Kevin M Randall wrote:
>>>
>>>  And if we want to use a controlled vocabulary, the only agreed-upon one
>>>
>>>> for the PCC is LCSH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> On this, I must respectfully but forcefully disagree, Kevin.  The DCM Z1
>>> does not say we should use LCSH.  For example for field 374 it says:
>>> "Prefer controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or Me
>>> SH, recording the source in subfield $2."  For 372 it says: "When
>>> recording a term indicating the field, prefer controlled vocabulary, such
>>> as LCSH or MeSH, recording the source in subfield $2."  For 368 it says:
>>> "Prefer controlled vocabulary for terms, recording the source in subfield
>>> $2."
>>>
>>> LCSH happens to be the easiest controlled vocabulary for most of us to
>>> use, because it is easy to search in the utilities, and it is quite
>>> familiar since many of us use it for assigning subject headings.  But it
>>> is
>>> not a mandated vocabulary to use and certainly not the only agreed-upon
>>> one
>>> for PCC.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>> (206) 543-8409
>>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
>> Data Management & Access, University Libraries
>> University of Minnesota
>> 160 Wilson Library
>> 309 19th Avenue South
>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
>> Ph: 612-625-2328
>> Fx: 612-625-3428
>> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>>
>>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>



-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242