It’s just occurred to me that we create NARs for non-human animals, as well as for humans. And we use 375 for them (there are several horses on LC/NAF with gender recorded as “male”). In LCSH, “Males” is a broader term of “Men”; as we create NARs for “organisms in general” (including humans), I don’t think it would be wrong to collocate gender at the broader level of “Males”, if using LCSH.
This is an issue for me at the moment, as we add a lot of the common element-level metadata using macros, and with the recent changes to RDA I need to redesign the macros that currently give 375s with uncontrolled terms “male” and “female”. Whatever its limitations, we currently use LCSH here for most things, having cataloguers who are familiar with it, and an updated local copy on the system. And I’m minded to collocate at the broader level.
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.”
Some of my other pet peeves are:
Adding "--Research" to a 372 string
Adding "--Study and teaching" to a 372 field (unless the person actually writes about pedagogy of a particular topic)
Recording 375 for females |2 lcsh
males |2 lcsh
Scope note is Here are entered works on female/male organisms in general (not on humans)
Adding |2 iso5218 to 375 fields for male/female or Male/Female
The ISO/IEC 5218 code "provides a set of numeric codes that are independent of language-derived codes and as such is intended to provide a common basis for the international exchange of information containing human sex data" (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266).
Adding geographic and form subdivisions to a 372 field
Things like: English literature--Examinations--Study guides ; Art--Italy--Florence
On 5/23/2016 10:46 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
There’s been a lot of posts in the past week about lousy qualifier choices, e.g. (Graduate student).
I don’t have anything to add to that discussion, but it made me think about one of my particular pet peeves that I see in RDA records. It has to do with what some catalogers are recording as profession/occupation. Here are some examples:
374 Women physicians ǂa Surgeons ǂ2 lcsh
374 African American political activists ǂ2 lcsh
374 African American poets ǂa Authors, Black ǂ2 lcsh
374 African American poets ǂa Women poets ǂ2 lcsh
374 Women composers ǂ2 lcsh
374 Women translators ǂa Women missionaries ǂ2 lcsh
374 African American women singers ǂ2 lcsh
374 Mexican American musicians ǂ2 lcsh
374 Authors, Canadian ǂ2 lcsh
374 Hockey players ǂa Athletes ǂa Authors ǂa Jewish authors ǂ2 lcsh
374 Christian authors ǂa Women television personalities ǂ2 lcsh
374 Gay journalists ǂ2 lcsh
If you haven’t figured out my peeve yet, it’s the inclusion of gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. in profession/occupation terms recorded in this field. One does not go to school to study to be a woman physician or an African American poet or a gay journalist or Canadian author. Including qualifying terms serves to segregate people of the same occupation, and I don’t think this is a good thing in authority records. Why should women composers be labeled differently from men composers? Shouldn’t all poets be grouped together under a single term?
Gender already has a separate field (375) that can be recorded in authority records. If catalogers feel that religion, nationality, ethnicity or other characteristics are important to record there IS a place for it in the MARC format:
MARC field 368 (Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body), subfield $c (Other designation). While RDA doesn’t include provisions for recording religion, national, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics not included elsewhere in RDA instructions, 368 $c can be used for this, and has already been by some catalogers, e.g.:
368 ǂc Gay men ǂc Presbyterians ǂ2 lcdgt
368 ǂc Catholics ǂ2 lcsh
368 ǂc African Americans ǂ2 lcdgt
368 ǂc Italian Americans ǂc Lesbians ǂ2 lcdgt
As long as individuals identify themselves as being in a particular demographic group, or are so identified in reputable reference sources, I don’t have any qualms with including these kinds of characteristics in 368 $c if they are useful and could help to identify persons. Discussion??
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Cataloging & Metadata Services
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822
e-mail: [log in to unmask]