Print

Print


Adam,

Thanks. I’ll have to look at the LCDGT thesaurus.

 

Here’s a thought. Could we say that people don’t normally have an “occupation” (374) until they’re about 18? You can have titles as soon as you’re born (as with Prince George of England, born 2013), but you don’t normally have a job until around that age, or sometimes later. Of course there are people who become kings or otherwise have occupations a bit earlier, such as Edward VI, King of England, 1537-1553. I assume we would have to put King (or maybe Head of state as Bob is suggesting) on a 374 for him, but even he probably didn’t do that much of the job of ruling. I assume advisors at the court did most of the work.

 

The question is whether Prince Charles (1948-) has an occupation though he has not “ascended” to the throne. I think Bob’s suggestion of Government officials might work. His Wikipedia page shows he has lots of duties and interests.  As a government official, he has duties, but he also has interests in philanthropy and the environment. So Philanthropists and Environmentalists could also be added and give more specificity than Government officials gives.

 

Bob, I think Charles is an “official” government official, since Britain is a kind of monarchy. He is expected to do various things like officiating at investitures.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales

 

Ted Gemberling

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

Ted,

 

I'd prefer LCDGT over LCSH since it has Kings as a separate (and narrower) term from Rulers:

 

Rulers  

UF Heads of state

      State, Heads of

NT Dictators

      Emperors

      Empresses

      Governors

      Kings

      Presidents

      Prime ministers

      Queens

Get Outlook for iOS

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gemberling, Ted P <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:28:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

Oh, one other thought. I think it’s even possible for “king” to be just a title. I created an authority for Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans, 1633-1654 (no2015112264). He was expected to be Holy Roman Emperor but died suddenly at 21. He had been given the title of King but not Emperor. That seems like another case of someone who had a title but not the job. In the Holy Roman Empire, apparently the “king” was the heir apparent, something like the Prince of Wales in Britain. You would be crowned king first and then emperor. I assume he was prince, then king, but never made it to emperor. Probably only emperor was the occupation in that case. So would he be Kings and rulers in 368 but not in 374? 

 

However, I see Emperors is a narrower term for Kings and rulers in LCSH. If you were Holy Roman Emperor, I think that would be a 374. I would say Ferdinand should have Kings and rulers in 368 but nothing in 374.

 

Maybe this is making the whole thing too complicated. However, I do have serious doubts about Princes in 374, as stated in my last message

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

A belated contribution. The LCSH for “monarchs” and “sovereigns” is Kings and rulers. I think the king or “monarch” (including Elizabeth II) has a profession, but princes or princesses do not normally unless that is the highest office in a particular country, such as Monaco. Kings and rulers should be in 374, but Princes should be in 368. Princes is a rank, not an occupation.

 

Consider this example. Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, who died in 1978, held the title, but he never held office as a monarch.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Roman_Petrovich_of_Russia

 

He apparently spent most of his life outside Russia since the Romanov dynasty was overthrown about 1917. You normally don’t get the “job” unless you take the throne as king, which was impossible after that date.

 

I think you could make a case that Rainier III, Prince of Monaco (n  86102524)  should have Kings and rulers in 374 because that was his occupation, but Princes in 368 because that was his title.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Ted Gemberling

UAB Lister Hill Library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

On the other hand, what about “Kings. $2 lcdgt”? This seems more like an occupation to me. And if so, being a prince is, at least in some cases, more than just a status, it entails certain duties, i.e. “occupation”, e.g., the Prince of Wales, or Prince Philip. Maybe the answer is “it depends.”

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
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 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Sack
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

My vote is for 368, a field I use to record a term conveying a person's status rather than an occupational or professional class-of-persons term. For example, I recently recorded Political prisoners in 368 $c.
Nancy

On 12/14/2016 10:28 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

Collective wisdom:

 

What RDA element/MARC field is the best place to put the controlled LCSH term “Princes” (or “Princesses, for that matter)?   Looking through personal name authorities, it appears that most people are using MARC 374, which is occupation/profession.  But some records have the term in 368 $c – other designation associated with the person.   Is being a prince/princess an occupation?  Or just something else that is best recorded as an other designation?  (And different from an actual title, which goes into 368 $d).   Here are some examples from the NAF:

 

100 0   Louis, ǂc Dauphin of France, ǂd 1729-1765

368     ǂd Dauphin of France ǂs 1729 ǂt 1765

374     Princes ǂ2 lcsh

 

100 0   Sadatake, ǂc Prince, grandson of Reigen, Emperor of Japan, ǂd 1700-1754

368      ǂd Prince, grandson of Reigen, Emperor of Japan

374      Princes ǂ2 lcsh

 

100 0   Hikaru Genji ǂc (Fictitious character)

368      ǂc Fictitious characters ǂ2 lcsh

374      Princes ǂ2 lcsh

 

100 0   Beatrix, ǂc Queen of the Netherlands, ǂd 1938-

368      ǂd Queen of the Netherlands

374      Queens ǂa Princesses ǂ2 lcsh

400 0   Beatrix, ǂc Princess of the Netherlands, ǂd 1938-

 

but

 

100 0   Hassan bin Talal, ǂc Prince of Jordan

368     ǂc Princes ǂ2 lcsh

368     ǂd Prince of Jordan

 

100 0   José, ǂc Prince of Brazil, ǂd 1761-1788

368     ǂc Princes ǂ2 lcsh

368     ǂd Prince of Brazil

 

100 1   Comnena, Anna, ǂd 1083-

368      ǂc Princesses ǂ2 lcsh

 

100 0   Electra ǂc (Greek mythological figure)

368     ǂc Greek mythological figure

368    ǂc Princesses ǂ2 lcsh

 

 

 

 

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

Cataloging & Metadata Services

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

[log in to unmask]

 

 

-- 
Nancy Sack
Cataloging Department
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: 808-956-2648
fax: 808-956-5968
e-mail: [log in to unmask]