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.
David Van Kleeck
Head, Special Collections Unit
Cataloging and Discovery Services
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117004
Gainesville, FL 32611-7004
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.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"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.
An inevitable consequence of telling people to use LCSH. J
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
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