Leslie,

That’s a fair point. I guess it depends on how much we want to get out of the 374 field. Of course this is taking us far beyond what name authorities were for a long time, a way of differentiating people. I’ll admit that when I created the Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans authority, I did not put either a 368 or 374 on though I coded it RDA. I figured it wasn’t necessary for differentiating the name. I did include the 046. Otherwise it was just like an old AACR2 authority.

 

Of course another problem with adding those 3XX fields for Ferdinand is that his status was somewhat ambiguous, as I explained. Was he a king? Certainly not a head of state.

 

I do think that being a head of state is a job, but being a prince is not. Whether that distinction is worth coding on our authority records is the question. I suppose it might be if we ever decided it was important in our database to distinguish, say, between heads of state and assistant heads of state. Then it might make sense to have 374 for a king as well as a 368 with his title.

 

Ted Gemberling

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

Speaking from an historical vantage point, royals, nobility, and other landowners ("gentlemen") don't have a profession or occupation in the sense of having a job. It seems silly to shoehorn these people into an occupation when the shoe doesn't fit. Being a prince isn't an occupation, it's a demographic group, and as far as I know, we don't have an element for demographic identification except for gender.

 

Use 368$d with the person's title. If the royal person is appointed to an office with defined duties, or has a particular interest they actively pursue, occupations and fields of activity could then possibly be appropriate. So:

 

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

368      ǂd Queen of the Netherlands ǂd Princess of the Netherlands

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

 

Deborah J. Leslie | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask]

201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, 16 December, 2016 00:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

Bob wrote:

 

"'Heads of state' would in my opinion be better as an occupation"

 

I don't disagree, and you could do a SACO proposal to change the preferred term!  One possible problem is that heads of state and heads of government are different, aren't they?  Many countries have both a president and a prime minister.  Aren't the former heads of state and the latter heads of government? Perhaps "Rulers" encompasses both of them?

 

Adam 

Get Outlook for iOS

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 3:38:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is "Princes" an occupation/profession term?

 

Adam,

 

First of all, I think we need a general term for the occupation of what the person in charge is doing, and that should go in the occupation field. I don’t really like “Rulers”—“Heads of state” would in my opinion be better as an occupation, sounds a little less dictatorial and besides nowadays most kings and queens aren’t really rulers, but they do have a ceremonial function, i.e., an occupation. That general term, if made available, could be used for all these people where appropriate, including the Prince of Monaco, whatever.

 

I also think we need a general occupation term for titled people when they’re taking an active role in the life of the country (e.g., they go around opening new construction sites, are expected to be in charge of charities or projects, etc.), but aren’t the head of state (vs. people who happen to have titles but don’t really do anything aside from being rich). “Government officials” might work, except in LCDGT it’s a UF for “Government employees” and I really don’t think that works for Prince William or his father or grandfather (and besides maybe they’re not really “official”
government officials). We need a general term to describe the occupation of those three and others like them.

 

If we could put one of those general terms in 374, it doesn’t matter what the person’s title is; the occupation term in 374 should describe the function of what they do, not their title. How is the occupation of “King” different from that of “Queen” or “Emperor” or “Empress”?

 

And finally, why not use 368 $d for the controlled form of their title (rather than 368 $c, as everybody’s been suggesting)? All of the narrower terms you cite below under “rulers” are titles (except perhaps “dictators” and even that one stems from the real title of a Roman government/military office.)

 

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 Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 3:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 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]