Stephen, What reason would a library have to not use a controlled vocabulary if possible? In other words, while LCSH, MeSH and others don’t have all the terms a cataloger might need, it’s hard to see why someone would choose *never* to use controlled vocabularies. If we allowed every library that wanted to put its own “folksonomy” on authority records to do so, I would think the records could get pretty messy. When you say that “If it appears only in 100 $c, there'd be no easy way to determine what facet category the term belongs to,” are you talking about a computer program determining that? If adding professor to a name makes it unique and 374 College teachers $2 lcsh is also on the record, it’s hard to see what more information one would need. But maybe I’m not understanding what “determining what facet” refers to. Ted From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:00 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<tel:%28206%29%20543-8409> (206) 685-8782<tel:%28206%29%20685-8782> fax [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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<tel:612-625-2328> Fx: 612-625-3428<tel: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<tel:%28206%29%20543-8409> (206) 685-8782<tel:%28206%29%20685-8782> fax [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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