Thanks everyone for a varied and interesting discussion. 

 

Our library uses the MARS service (Backstage) which corrects access points that match 4XXs in NAF; no 4XX, no correction, so I prefer to have them in the records whenever possible.  For us, it would be an advantage to have them even for “egregiously incorrect” forms, but we do observe NACO policy and refrain from making them in such cases.

 

For “gray areas” like the one I described, if we knew the reasoning behind the NACO policy it would help inform our decision about whether to apply the policy.  Does anyone know the reason(s)? 

 

mjc   

 

 

Like many catalogs, Duke’s includes a link for reporting errors.  I have found that in the rare cases when a change is requested for a heading, there is about a 90% likelihood that the person making the request is the author in question.  Patrons aren’t beating down the doors for more accurate headings.  They find what they want (or not) and go on.  The catalog we labor over is an invisible tool.  Yes, I lot of what we do is essential to its functioning, but a lot isn’t.

 

Amy

 

 

> A case could be made that it would be better to leave the heading uncorrected until linked data makes the issues of cross references and bibliographic file maintenance obsolete

 

Hmm. Should our patrons have to wait that long? Should we? Yes, look ahead, but we need solutions for the here and now.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will Evans

National Endowment for the Humanities

Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108

 

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 243

Fax: 617-227-5266 

www.bostonathenaeum.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Paul.  Off on a tangent, let’s compare “egregiously incorrect” with the wording about the change in the death date “no longer thought to be correct.”   We’ve had a lot of discussion on this list about when to correct a heading, and this one falls into a grey area.  There is no conflict, and there are sources supporting two different death dates.  Cataloger’s judgment comes into play here.  A case could be made that it would be better to leave the heading uncorrected until linked data makes the issues of cross references and bibliographic file maintenance obsolete.

 

Amy

 

 

Hi everyone,

 

Adam is correct that a 4XX variant would not be made when correcting a “big typo” in a 1XX field. The phrase “egregiously incorrect” is the somewhat more formal NACO phrase for “big typo.”

 

Paul  

 

Paul Frank

Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs

Cooperative Programs Section

Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division

Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20540-4230

202-707-1570

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Jane,

 

I think in most cases no 400 is made at all in this situation, suppressed or not.  But I will defer to NACO Coop folks at LC, and wait to hear what they suggest.

 

Adam

 

 

In such a case (big typo) is a 400, suppressed, useful for automated processes performing flips?

mjc

 

 

I agree with Everett.

 

I think there’s a difference between your example and something like this:

 

Correcting the access point Smith, John, $d 1920-9185 to Smith, John, $d 1920-1985

In a case like this, there is a simple typo in the access point, which needs to be corrected, but I would not make a 4XX for the form that had the typo.

 

Adam

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Everett Allgood
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: death date changed; 400?