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