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