Print

Print


Adam

 

I agree on the desirability of using controlled terms. However, for 375 and the other fields, Z1 is quite clear that we are *permitted* to use uncontrolled terms, because it tells us how to record them when we do: "When terms do not come from a controlled vocabulary, use a singular form". 

 

It took PCC an age, after RDA implementation, even to get to the stage of *preferring* controlled vocabularies. I argued from the outset that they should be *required*, and the BL has used them since the start (not 375 because until recently RDA prescribed the terms to be used). It's long overdue for PCC to require controlled vocabularies, because, as you say, you can't link to something that doesn't have a URI.  

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [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 [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 May 2016 16:26
To: [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]> 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]
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]
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. For consistency, capitalize the first term in each subfield $a.  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]      

 

“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]
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]> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:43:13 AM
To: [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]> 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

[log in to unmask]

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5649-321X

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:40 AM


To: [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

"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]> on behalf of Dagher, Iman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:16:30 PM
To: [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]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Profession/occupation terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.

 

An inevitable consequence of telling people to use LCSH.  J

 

------------------------------------------

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]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (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]
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]

 



 

--

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

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

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] : 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