Hi Adam:

 

   Unfortunately, PCC/NACO policy is what we have to follow to contribute authority records to OCLC, since they are scooped up by LC. Individual libraries have always been permitted to do anything they want in their local catalogs, regardless of any rules.

 

 Thus it would seem that RDA is entirely irrelevant here. That’s the problem with “guidelines” vs. rigid institutional policy, and requiring all libraries to follow the internal practices of a single library (e.g. LC). Let’s go back to the idea of AACR2[+] (which also never prescribed local cataloging practices, despite its specificity).

 

Cheers!

 

John G. Marr

Collections

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

 

From: Adam L. Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:30 AM
To: John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]>; Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Most Useless Name Qualifier of the Day (I selected the winner)

 

Don't confuse RDA itself with PCC/NACO policies.  RDA allows undifferentiated names.  It's PCC policy not to allow them in new name authorities or to add new identities to existing undifferentiated NARs.  

 

Adam

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

 



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:27 AM -0700, "John Gordon Marr" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Better yet: Barrett, Jenny (Jennifer)   

 

What we’re proving here is the problematic nature of RDAs approach (overkill, IMHO) to this issue vs. the practicality of creating temporary undifferentiated headings until such time as practical qualifiers can be discovered.

 

On other factor no one has yet mentioned: exactly how many patrons are really detrimentally affected by undifferentiated headings vs. the number who will be confused by the type of temporarily “correct” qualifiers already mentioned in this list (2 years from now: “Well, I do know that she is not a ‘graduate student’ [now]”).

 

The whole concept of “occupation” qualifiers has gotten way out of hand and it would be best to stop it now.

 

Cheers!

 

John G. Marr

Collections

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 9:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Most Useless Name Qualifier of the Day (I selected the winner)

 

How about:

 

Barrett, Jenny (Expert on mental health of refugees)

 

or

 

Barrett, Jenny (Researcher on refugees and mental health)

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

 

 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:44 AM -0700, "Benjamin A Abrahamse" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In some ways they're better, because the qualifier based on a single event (the authorship/publication of a work), and so it's going to be stable, as opposed to a status ("graduate student") which is likely not. (There are of course *some people* for whom the condition of "graduate student" has taken on a more or less permanent status. But they aren't usually the ones getting books published and cataloged.)

 

ON the other hand, I see some some con's to this approach as well:

 

--not exactly concise (maybe this is the point you were making?)

 

--it will look kind of redundant and weird on the record for the work used as the basis of qualifier, e.g.:

 

Barrett, Jenny (Author of An exploration and critique of the use of mental health information within refugee status determination proceedings in the United Kingdom), author.

An exploration and critique of the use of mental health information within refugee status determination proceedings in the United Kingdom.

 

b

 

 

 

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement

MIT Libraries

617-253-7137

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Most Useless Name Qualifier of the Day (I selected the winner)

 

Looking for an alternative that would have been available, which would be better:

 

Arnold, Robert $c (Graduate student)

Arnold, Robert $c (Author of Historical dictionary of the U.S. Supreme Court)

 

Barrett, Jenny $c (Graduate student)

Barrett, Jenny $c (Author of An exploration and critique of the use of mental health information within refugee status determination proceedings in the United Kingdom)

 

Hardy, Douglas $c (Graduate student)

Hardy, Douglas $c (Author of Influence of Finnish Kalevala in the composition of Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha)

 

"Author of ..." and similar qualifiers have the advantages of being true over time, of sounding less global, and of nearly always being available, at the expense of being a bit long.  Are they a better last resort qualifier than a term indicating a possibly transitory role or interest based on limited evidence?

 

Stephen

 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Paul Robert Burley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Counterpoint: I’m at an institution that produces a very large number of original or upgraded NARs/SARs/etc. annually. If a few NAR qualifiers from my annual set of records are clunkers, yet valid from one of the NAR 374 $2 source of term vocabularies, I find that perfectly reasonable. They’re not “winners”, they generally come up across once or twice across every thousand NARs I create/modify, but they accomplish the establishment of a heading in light of not using undifferentiated headings.

 

I suggest that catalogers/metadata folks in heavy production mode make decisions on NAR qualifiers based on your time constraints and best judgment, strictly adhere to PCC standards, and not worry about a substandard qualifier. It happens.

 

Paul R. Burley

Metadata Librarian

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

1970 Campus Drive

Evanston, IL 60208

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

O: 874.491.5274

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 7:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Most Useless Name Qualifier of the Day (I selected the winner)

 

It's 9.19.1.6 (and its PS and also the PS for 9.19.1.3).



There are a lot more than three that have the same problem in different forms, such as:

(College student)
(PhD student)
(Student M.A.)
(Student at American University)
(Doctoral student at Georgetown University)
(Medical student)
(Law student)
(Doctoral candidate)
(Ph.D. candidate)
(Intern)
(Research intern)
(Medical trainee)

The are also a few hundred personal name headings with the occupation/profession qualifier "assistant professor" or "associate professor," which in many cases will also be problematic.


Michael A. Chopey
Catalog Librarian
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968

On 5/17/2016 12:58 PM, Ed M. Kazzimir wrote:

Sorry, the voting polls closed.  The winner is:

 

$c (Graduate student)

 

There are three personal name authorized access points in the NACO authority file with this qualifier.  I would like to share why I feel this type of qualifier ought to be avoided.

 

Many people are current or former graduate students.  Nowadays I work mostly with technical and scientific materials, so the authors of these materials who have shared names generally have been graduate students.  If the person graduates or drops out of college, does the qualifier really mean anything?  The person was a student at the time of writing a particular document perhaps.  But it seems to me that a user might interpret that qualifier to imply that all works (including the author's earlier and later works) assigned with that access point as having been written during his/her graduate school period.

 

I suppose that qualifier might be justified by:

* RDA 1.19.1.2.6 "Other Designation Associated with the Person" though it is not one of the types listed (a) sacred term, (b) fictitious term, or (c) animal type.

*  Or perhaps by RDA 9.19.1.6 "Profession or Occupation".

*  Or perhaps by RDA 9.19.1.7 "Other Term or Rank, Honor, or Office".

*  Or perhaps by RDA 9.19.1.8 "Other Designation".

 

To me "student" is not an occupation or profession.  It is a temporary activity that does not denote someone's expertise or efforts in an area for the sake of identification.  It is not a rank or "honor" (in the sense of cataloging rules).  And it doesn't seem quite like a designation at all to me.

 

One of the three headings is:   Arnold, Robert ǂc (Graduate student)

I was working on materials by another "Robert Arnold".  Fortunately, I have a middle initial, birth year, and death year.  He was very accomplished and probably had graduate schooling.  There is a heading for another "Robert Arnold" who has a J.D. degree (but with a middle initial and fuller form of name).  My point is that this qualifier just does not help to tell us why this person as a student is different.

 

I would think "(Student of botany)", etc. would be far better.  My apologies if I missed a rule or LC-PCC Policy Statement that supports it.  By the way, my library school alma mater institutional library had made that authority record.  If that institution chose to catalog my specialization paper with "$c (Graduate student)" next to my name, I would not be pleased.

 

 

Ed Kazzimir

ARLIS

Anchorage, Alaska

 



 

--

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