 |
 |
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~