Print

Print


> 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













*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*On Behalf Of *Amy Turner
*Sent:* Thursday, June 09, 2016 9:12 AM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] death date changed; 400?



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



*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Frank, Paul
*Sent:* Thursday, June 09, 2016 8:51 AM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] death date changed; 400?



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]









*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Adam L. Schiff
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:28 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] death date changed; 400?



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



*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Cuneo, Mary Jane
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:08 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: death date changed; 400?



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

mjc



*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Adam L. Schiff
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:36 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: death date changed; 400?



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]
<[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?



Mary Jane :

Hi -- in a situation like the one you describe in which you are changing
what was a previously valid 1XX access point, I believe it would be a
disservice not to provide a 4XX with the previous form, and subfield $w nne.

It seems to me, there is every probability that the earlier "valid" form of
the LC/NAF NAR with the incorrect death date has made it downstream into
Bibliographic (and Authority) files within some library ILS systems beyond
the national NACO file. That being the case, providing the 4XX
cross-reference will allow systems to machine process the flip and will
also prevent cataloger confusion.

And yes, when I have provided such NACO cross-references in the past both
the DCM Z1 instruction and the NACO Personal Names FAQ always give me
pause. My thought has always been though that if the cross-reference I am
making was a previously distributed NACO 1XX access point that even one
library catalog may have used in a Bib or Authority file, then the
cross-reference is necessary.

Isn't that the altruistic point of cataloging for the greater good (i.e.,
PCC Cataloging)?

my two cents,

everett





On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Cuneo, Mary Jane <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Hello Collective Wisdom,



While working with a personal name record, one of our catalogers discovered
that the death date is no longer thought to be correct.  A later edition of
the initial reference source has amended the date accordingly, and our
cataloger found another relatively recent reference source to corroborate
as well.  She has changed the date.  Here’s how the record looks now (the
relevant parts).  670-3 and 4 are new:



no 2005006024   Tamada, Gyokushūsai, ǂd 1856-1919   [death date was: 1921]



670   Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taisho, Shōwa hen, 2000: ǂb p. 1273
(Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller active during the
Meiji and Taisho periods; famous for Tatsukawa bunko)

670  Nihon choshamei, jinmei tenkyoroku, 2002: ǂb p. 1267 (Tamada
Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; b. 1856 d. 1921; storyteller; real name is Katō
Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)

670  Jinbutsu refarensu jiten. Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa (senzen)
hen.II,2000-2009, 2010: ǂb p. 1190 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-dai; 1856-1919)

670  20-seiki Nihon jinmei jiten = Major 20th-century people in Japan,
2004: ǂb page 1599 (Tamada Gyokushūsai 2-daimei; 1856-1919; storyteller;
real name is Katō Manjirō; pen name Gyokurin)



DCM Z1, under 4XX (General), says not to make a “4XX access point” from the
old form when it contains a date recorded in error.  The NACO Personal
Names FAQ #12 says not to add the “inaccurate form” as a “cross
reference.”  However,

--in this case the death date was not recorded in error at the time; it
reflected what was in reference sources

--a 400 would be helpful for machine processing of flips

--the 400 could be suppressed if it were felt patrons should not see it, so
it would not generate a “cross reference” or an “access point”

--maybe patrons would benefit by seeing such a cross reference, since it
represents more just than a cataloger’s error



Thoughts?



Thanks,



Mary Jane Cuneo

Serials cataloging and NACO

Information and Technical Services

Harvard Library






-- 

*************************

Everett Allgood
Authorities Librarian & Principal Serials Cataloger
New York University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
212 998 2488