Print

Print


Bob, I agree, and attempted to make the same point myself earlier in this
thread. I was just making a counterexample here, and apologize if that
wasn't clear.

Matt

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> It has already been pointed out that neither “boys” nor “men” are gender
> terms, they are classes of persons who happen to be defined partly by
> gender and partly by age and partly by species (human).
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 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 [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Matthew C. Haugen
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:20 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Gender in 375 and macros WAS Profession/occupation terms
> and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
>
>
>
> I agree it doesn't make sense to try to record whether someone has
> achieved adulthood in 375 or elsewhere. But age can be reflected in the
> date of birth in 046 $f but "Adulthood" is not really a fixed category
> across cultures/time periods (nor is gender, really but that's another
> argument). It would be pretty beyond the cataloger call of duty to figure
> out when a person went from child to adult, legally, medically, ritually,
> or otherwise, and it would require more record maintenance as people
> age--nor can i imagine a case in which this particularly useful. So I'm not
> actually advocating for this, but if we did want to reflect age in 375
> gender terms, I suppose it would look something like this?
>
>
>
> 375 Boys $2 lcdgt $s 1940 $t 1958
>
> 375 Men $2 lcdgt $s 1958
>
>
>
> At the same time, identifying works created by children might actually be
> useful but I think this remains constant as an attribute of the works,
> while the person ages; so, for someone like Mozart, one could add "386
> Children $2 lcdgt" to the records for works he composed as a child.
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Wilson, Pete <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> I should have waited to send my earlier message preferring “men” and
> “women” to “males” and “females” until I’d read the rest of the messages on
> the same point.
>
>
>
> I see Matthew Haugen’s point—that “men” and “women” reflect age as well as
> gender.  But is there another part of a personal name authority record
> where we indicate whether a human is/was past puberty or not?   (It doesn’t
> really make sense.)  And what would we call a Mozart?  I don’t think using
> “men” and “women” in the 375 really conflicts with anything worth doing.
>
>
>
> Pete Wilson
>
> Vanderbilt University
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Matthew C. Haugen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11:13 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Gender in 375 and macros WAS Profession/occupation
> terms and gender/ethnicity/nationality/religion etc.
>
>
>
> As Richard points out, DCM-Z1 375 now instructs to prefer a controlled
> vocabulary such as LCDGT or LCSH for gender terms. It also instructs to
> capitalize the first term in each $a for consistency.
>
>
>
> The OCLC Connexion Client "GenerateAuthorityRecord" macro continues to
> supply the deprecated RDA terms, in uncapitalized and uncontrolled form
> (male, female, not known), and many, many existing records have the former
> rda terms.
>
>
>
> So, I agree that it is allowable to continue to use uncontrolled terms,
> and even capitalization or not probably doesn't make a big difference,
> really. But I would argue against continuing to use "not known" as a gender
> value; it is no longer defined as a gender in the RDA glossary, and we do
> not record a "not known" value for other 3xx fields when we don't know the
> occupation, language, etc. attributes of the person.
>
>
>
> In lcdgt, the terms Men, Women also have an age category (along with Boys,
> Girls) so following similar arguments about element granularity, I would
> advocate for using gender-only terms (Males, Females, Transgender people,
> etc.).
>
>
>
> I worked out a "hack" to get the Connexion macro to supply capitalized
> and/or controlled terms, and thought I'd share the instructions for those
> who might be interested:
>
>
>
> 1. in OCLC Connexion, navigate the menu Tools-->Macros-->Manage
>
> 2. Select "GenerateAuthorityRecord" from the list of macros, and click Edit
>
> 3. Press Ctrl-F and search for the term "male"
>
> 4. This should bring you to a section, somewhere around row 1995, that
> reads:
>
>
>
> Sub DefGendList
>
>    ReDim sGendList(3)
>
>    sGendList(0) = ""
>
>    sGendList(1) = "female"
>
>    sGendList(2) = "male"
>
>    sGendList(3) = "not known"
>
>   End Sub
>
>
>
> 5. Here, you can capitalize the gender terms within quotes, or replace
> them with controlled values, using Eszett (ß) in place of the subfield
> delimiter (ǂ). The third option "not known" can be replaced with another
> value (more about this in the notes below). So, for example:
>
>
>
> Sub DefGendList
>
>    ReDim sGendList(3)
>
>    sGendList(0) = ""
>
>    sGendList(1) = "Females ß2 lcdgt"
>
>    sGendList(2) = "Males ß2 lcdgt"
>
>    sGendList(3) = "Transgender people ß2 lcdgt"
>
>   End Sub
>
>
>
> 6. Additional controlled or uncontrolled terms can be added to the list
> following the same pattern, increasing the number for each list item added,
> and increasing the digit in line 2 of this section to match the highest
> numbered option in the list, e.g.:
>
>
>
> Sub DefGendList
>
>    ReDim sGendList(6)
>
>    sGendList(0) = ""
>
>    sGendList(1) = "Females ß2 lcdgt"
>
>    sGendList(2) = "Males ß2 lcdgt"
>
>    sGendList(3) = "Transgender people ß2 lcdgt"
>
>    sGendList(4) = "Intersex people ß2 lcsh"
>
>    sGendList(5) = "Two-spirit people ß2 lcsh"
>
>    sGendList(6) = "Genderqueer people"
>
>  End Sub
>
>
>
> 6. Click Save and close the editor.
>
> 7. Next time you run the macro, the gender options list should show this
> update. It will flip the Eszett (ß) back to the subfield delimiter (ǂ)
> when entered into the authority record.
>
>
>
> Notes:
>
>
>
> The macro contains separate sections which attempt to suggest a male or
> female gender based on forenames, titles, and Japanese suffixes found in
> the 1xx field. If this process does not result in a match, the macro will
> supply a blank (sGendlist option 0). It's not a perfect system, but
> changing the order or numbering of list numbers 0,1, or 2 will interfere
> with that matching, so be careful if making any additional changes to the
> first three list options. There is no controlled vocabulary equivalent for
> the RDA gender term "not known" and the macro does not use it in the
> matching script, so it can be replaced with another value.
>
>
>
> Currently, only 4 vocabularies are valid for $2 source of term: lcsh,
> lcdgt, iso5218, or rvmgd.
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/gender.html Terms from other
> lists may be used, but must be entered without the $2.
>
>
>
> Depending on your local settings, etc. this change may require
> administrative privileges, and it may be necessary to update the macro at
> each login/workstation you use.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Mary Mastraccio <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> No discussion, Adam, you have described perfectly what should be standard
> practice. “Women physicians” is not a profession. “Physicians” is a
> profession, etc.
>
>
>
> Mary L. Mastraccio
> Director of Cataloging and Authorities
> MARCIVE, Inc.
> San Antonio, TX  78265
> 800-531-7678
> www.marcive.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Adam L. Schiff
> *Sent:* Monday, May 23, 2016 3:46 PM
> *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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Matthew C. Haugen
> Rare Book Cataloger
> 102 Butler Library
> Columbia University Libraries
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 212-851-2451
>
>


-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 212-851-2451