Print

Print


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] <[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] <[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