Zhonghua,
I don’t think it’s correct to say that you are “following RDA and PCC practice to use male and female to record gender.” RDA has changed, and you should no longer follow a practice that RDA doesn’t actually specify. RDA 9.7.1.3 no longer includes a list of gender terms. All it says now is:
9.7.1.3. Record the gender of the person, using an appropriate term in a language preferred by the agency creating the data. Select a term from a standard list, if available.
Record gender as a separate element. Gender is not recorded as part of an access point.
It’s true that an earlier iteration of this instruction had a list of terms, making them a standard, controlled list to use. But that list is no longer present in RDA, meaning that it’s not correct to say that by continuing to record “female” and “male” you are following RDA or current PCC practice. You are following an obsolete practice. RDA says “select a term from a standard list, if available.” PCC says to prefer controlled vocabulary for this element. Since standard lists are available (LCDGT, LCSH, ISO 5218 and probably others that aren’t yet listed in the MARC Gender Code and Term Source Codes list (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/gender.html)), it seems to me that continuing to record the terms “male” and “female” without also including a subfield $2 for a source for those terms, is not following the spirit of either RDA or PCC stated preferences. As others have pointed out too, the DCM Z1 for 375 says “For consistency, capitalize the first term in each subfield $a.”
ISO 5218 is really about international numeric codes for human sexes, but it does include the English terms “male” and “female”, and in fact I believe that is where RDA originally got its list of terms. So if one wants to continue to record the singular forms from a standard list, I think one also has to include $2 iso5218.
This is what ISO 5218 says:
Human sex is represented by a one-character numeric code.
The following data elements and codes are used:
Data elements Code
Not known 0 (zero)
Male 1 (one)
Female 2 (two)
Not applicable 9 (nine)
The DCM Z1 also says “Prefer use of terms over the ISO 5218 codes.”
My conclusion from reading the current instruction in RDA and the DCM Z1 is that yes, uncontrolled capitalized terms in singular form are allowed in this field, but that is not preferred. Since it’s easy to use controlled terms from LCDGT, LCSH, or even ISO 5218, I don’t know why libraries would continue to follow a now obsolete RDA practice.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Zhonghua Du
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
We prefer controlled vocabulary, too. For the 375 field, we didn’t choose uncontrolled vocabulary over controlled vocabulary. We have been following RDA and PCC practice to use male and female to record gender. I think it might be better to keep consistent practice except the practice is abandoned by the library community or the change will facilitate resources discovery. I don’t think this will be an issue for linked data because these terms could be batch changed easily.
Zhonghua
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
I disagree. The PCC policy is to PREFER controlled vocabulary. There are several available to use such as LCDGT and LCSH. Why would one choose an alternative of uncontrolled term when we are asked to prefer controlled terms?Uncontrolled terms are particularly unhelpful once we get to a linked data environment where we need URIs.
Adam
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:41 AM -0700, "Zhonghua Du" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Good morning Mirtha,
Ok. I agree with you. According to DCM:Z1 that Richard quoted below, it’s up to us to use controlled vocabularies or not. If nobody objects, we can continue using female and male on the 375 field. Also, RDA says that gender is not recorded as part of an access point. So I think either controlled or non-controlled vocabularies are fine.
Zhonghua
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mirtha Hernandez
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
Good morning Zhonghua,
Let see if anyone replies to the last sentence on this post. If there are no replies, I think we can continue using female and male on the 375 field.
Mirtha
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 2:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
Adam
I approve of the use of controlled vocabularies in 3XX, although we haven’t changed our macros yet. It’s worth noting DCM:Z1 for that field:
prefer controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH, recording the source in subfield $2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__desktop.loc.gov_search-3Fview-3Ddocument-26doc-5Faction-3Dsetdoc-26doc-5Fkeytype-3Dfoliodestination-26doc-5Fkey-3Dmaauth375SPACEDOLLAR2-26hash-3D375SPACEDOLLAR2-26fq-3Dcoreresources-257Ctrue&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=i-i5UseHlhhgsL51qlh5r2zBeC8agiR3Qx7qC-hgQAk&e=>. For consistency, capitalize the first term in each subfield $a<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__desktop.loc.gov_search-3Fview-3Ddocument-26doc-5Faction-3Dsetdoc-26doc-5Fkeytype-3Dfoliodestination-26doc-5Fkey-3Dmaauth375SPACEDOLLARa-26hash-3D375SPACEDOLLARa-26fq-3Dcoreresources-257Ctrue&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=cwAhN2_XpC4uDl-LSo8EuN7r7vzg_NfVZNOb92PfLkk&e=>. When terms do not come from a controlled vocabulary, use a singular form
So I don’t think it’s the case that 375 female isn’t valid.
Regards
Richard
________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down.”
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 24 May 2016 16:34
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
With actresses, I have been making a little bit of an exception: I always record both Actors and Actresses as separate terms from LCSH. Of course now that Actors is in LCDGT and Actresses is a variant to that authorized term, I think I will just use Actors with the $2 code lcdgt.
375 female is not valid anymore in RDA. There is no longer a list of terms for gender in RDA, and both RDA and PCC say to take terms from a controlled vocabulary if possible. We are using LCDGT for this, so:
375 Females $2 lcdgt
375 Males $2 lcdgt
375 Transgender people $2 lcdgt
375 Intersex people $2 lcdgt
etc.
Adam
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:43:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
I agree with Adam's point about 374, if only from a data management perspective. No one should expect to find information about a person's ethnicity or religious affiliation or gender in an "occupation" element. If that information is going to be recorded, it should be elsewhere. The issue gets a little murkier when the terms are not compound. I prefer "374 Actors" with "375 female" over "374 Actresses" for women actors, but there are over 5000 counter examples in NAF.
Stephen
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Van Kleeck,David A <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Agreed. I think this issues stems, in part, from our training to use the most specific term we can when choosing subject headings for bibliographic records. Maybe, as Adam suggests, the shift to focus on the use of LCDGT for 374 would be the way to go. At the least, we should be using "Translators", not "Women translators," as Robert suggests.
Dave
David Van Kleeck
Head, Special Collections Unit
Cataloging and Discovery Services
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117004
Gainesville, FL 32611-7004
352-273-2863<tel:352-273-2863>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5649-321X<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__orcid.org_0000-2D0001-2D5649-2D321X&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=jdQ8-TqyIS9k9cFG4KxY2i3TrpPscZt8Q3X2yVqMIS8&e=>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
I agree with Adam. I also note that PCC policy is to prefer terms from controlled vocabularies, but not to require them, nor does it require the use of LCSH even when using a controlled vocabulary, so I don't think we can lay the blame entirely at LCSH's feet. It would be perfectly possible to make up an uncontrolled form following the pattern in LCSH ("women clarinetists")--PLEASE don't do that! But just because it's in LCSH doesn't make it appropriate to use--use "Translators", not "Women translators" in 374.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568<tel:%28801%29422-5568>
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Dagher, Iman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:16:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
I agree with Adam and John’s recommendation.
However, in some instances I find the 368 $c a good place to use for some other attributes that are not necessarily from controlled vocabularies, such as some religious titles that can be relevant to identify certain people to: Shaykh or ‘Allamah, etc.
Also some catalogers tend to add what they have as SH of bibliographic records in the 372 field of NAR which may not be relevant or true as field of activity of the author.
Iman
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
An inevitable consequence of telling people to use LCSH. ☺
------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+(1)(617) 495-3974<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20495-3974> (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409<tel:%2B%281%29%28617%29%20496-4409> (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 16:46
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
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 Schiff
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Cataloging & Metadata Services
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--
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
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=RsJW6642D6Mr8DrJrpUAOmh4cPp2--HQmgTcc2ggvBU&e=>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_aboutus_annrep_index.html&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=WLGB7WHFd1kyJFmY5GJlr-UaihK9IXXhUzvtN6--X58&e=>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bl.uk_adoptabook&d=AwMGaQ&c=1QsCMERiq7JOmEnKpsSyjg&r=HU8iuXUe7489T0GtzBZGdQ&m=5LnN91j85xKxm7TLC5V7bdDNDzPgPyem6GtH2m0KxzY&s=7shnolCiP94WTzPZ-jTqwsuUZcHdCwU1AtAukKCzfRk&e=>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print
