Print

Print


RDA is data format agnostic, so it doesn't talk about 3XX fields at all.  There are options for where to record the elements.  Also, for some elements there are no specific requirements on how to record them.  For example, for Profession or Occupation, all it says at 9.16.1.3 is:

Record the profession or occupation by recording a term indicating the class of persons engaged in the profession or occupation.
Record professions or occupations as separate elements, as parts of access points, or as both [emphasis added]. For additional instructions on recording a profession or occupation as part of the authorized access point, see 9.19.1.5.

The examples given are in the singular, but examples are not prescriptive.  The appropriate form for inclusion in an access point is obviously the singular, going by traditional practice.  But one could also argue that in the English language a "class of persons" is usually expressed in the plural.  And if we want to use a controlled vocabulary, the only agreed-upon one for the PCC is LCSH.

There are several ways that the elements in authority records can be used now and potentially may be used in the future.  I think Stephen is right that we should tolerate multiple instances of the 3XX fields expressing the elements in various ways.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records

Stephen,
Does RDA actually talk about 3XX fields in authority records? If you’ve already put “professor” in the 100, why would you need to put it in a 374 rather than “college teachers”?

I suppose one could argue it’s useful as a “folksonomy” term.

Ted Gemberling

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records

I can see two sides to this.

There's a basic discrepancy between text in 3XX authority fields meant to categorize the entity in relation to a controlled vocabulary and text meant for use as a gramatically appropriate qualifier added to the authorized access point. PCC has favored the former use, which can entail the use of plural terms and limited term choice to match a controlled vocabulary.  RDA favors the latter, preferring to enter 3XX terms as they would appear in a qualifier. The same text matching logic which drives the use of the controlled term also drives the need to match the uncategorized qualifier text in 100 $c with the text in a 374 (or some other sematically categorized field).  Though I'm not sure the 368 "other designation" field adds much semantic specificity to a term, the other 3XX fields do; e.g., "374 $a Professor" indicates that the possible 100 $c term is for an occupation or profession.  It might also follow personal usage more closely than the authorized category term, e.g., "Professor" rather than "374 $a College teachers $2 lcsh".

I agree that the notion that systems would be able to select and add qualifiers to a 1XX automatically is dubious; but being able to categorize terms in $c represents a different use case, and one not covered by the use of controlled vocabulary only. I also agree that controlled vocabulary terms have more general purpose uses than terms tailored to individual cases. If we have to choose between these two practices, then I'd side with using controlled vocabularies. But do we have to choose?  Given that the data element is potentially supporting to two different purposes, maybe we should be more tolerant of parallel 3XX fields.

Stephen