Print

Print


The fact that a field doesn't have a subfield $2 seems like sufficient notice that it's not necessarily from a controlled vocabulary.  Field 374 is for occupation, which is not necessarily the same as a person's professional title.

The school's website refers to it consistently and exclusively as Durham Law School.  Maybe a new name authority is needed.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage 
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138 
[log in to unmask] 
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) 
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 08:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
> 
> PCCLIST readers,
> 
> Diane Boehr said, in her message of Feb. 25: "We are seeing a disturbing
> trend of libraries removing various 3XX fields from authority records created
> by NLM to substitute LCSH terms.  We would like to remind PCC libraries that
> not everyone uses LCSH and while it is perfectly permissible to add an
> additional 3XX from your preferred controlled vocabulary, please do not
> remove the existing data from authority records."  Is there any way that
> fields such as Diane identifies can be labelled with a code, say in subfield 2 or
> 5 (which is not currently valid in some pertinent fields), so that people can
> know that they should not be edited to other forms?  It would be nice, for
> example, for NLM to have its own code applied in such cases.
> 
> I ask in the context of encountering a NAR having these fields:
> 
> 373  Durham Law School ǂa Durham University
> 374  Law professor
> 
> I found no NAR by browsing for Durham Law Schoo in lthe NACO authority
> file.  The NAR retrieved by Durham University (n  80050517) has: University of
> Durham.  NAR no2011030739 has: University of Durham. ǂb Department of
> Law.
> 
> Among other factors we have here a cultural distinction between U.S. and
> English practice in referring to universities and their departments.  (The
> Durham in question is Durham, England, in case you're wondering!)  To the
> English "Durham University" is just another less formal way of saying
> "University of Durham", whereas in the U.S. some institutions can be
> confused by such a liberal use of the language, and people don't usually say,
> for example, "New York University" to refer to the State University of New
> York.  Ditto for "Law school" - the University of Durham technically hasn't got
> one; it has a Department.  But the source in hand uses "Durham Law School",
> and without further investigation you wouldn't necessary know about these
> subtleties.
> 
> Similar remarks can be made about field 374.  In this case the source in hand
> reads "Professor of Law." Elsewhere I've written about the U.S./British
> differences in use of the term professor.  The converse applies in that U.S.
> usage is more liberal.  To be titled Professor is a tremendous achievement in
> British academia, whereas anyone teaching a college course in the U.S. can
> get called "professor".
> 
> According to Diane's message we should leave the existing fields alone,
> resisting any notion of "correcting" them and, if desired, add new ones for
> the forms found in NARs.  But it would help to be able to designate all such
> fields with an institution code, so that we know that they are valid within that
> organization's terms.  Sad to say, the fact that a record originates from a
> particular institution isn't necessarily an indication that it is free of error.
> 
> In any case, the person in question is now at "Essex Law School"!  In case
> you're interested the book in hand is "Moral rhetoric and the criminalisation
> of squatting", OCLC 878117385 LCCN 2014014882, and the NAR which prompts
> this message is no2011030739.  I was about to make some edits to the NAR,
> but didn't.
>