The MARC documentation should be updated.  The NACO Manual and DCM Z1 are aligned with current practice.

I started cataloging in 1996, and my recollection is that "her, his, its" citations were already obsolete then.



Robert Bratton

Cataloging Librarian

Jacob Burns Law Library

George Washington University

Washington, DC

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Ed M. Kazzimir <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

This question concerns the use of "his, her, or its" in 670 fields in authority records.  I thought this was old practice that was done used anymore, but the MARC manual for authority data (posted at:  and which is dated 09/22/2015) says:


"When a work has a non-distinctive title (e.g., a generic term), the citation may begin with the name of the author. When the author is the same as the 1XX heading, one of the following may be used in the citation: His, Her, Author's (gender unknown), or Its (not a personal name)."


Is this still to be followed or not?  The other NACO guidelines (dated between 2005 and 2016) do not support this.


The NACO Participants Manual, 3rd ed., 2005, page 38, reads:


"The main entry, formerly given as the first element of the 670, is no longer required.  However, if the title is generic in nature ("Minutes," "Report," etc.) or the cataloger feels that the main entry adds pertinent information to the record, it may be cited. In cases where automated tools are used to assist in the generation of authority records, main entries may be added to 670 fields algorithmically; such entries may be left in place in the interest of saving time, or deleted at the cataloger’s discretion."


and then goes on to say on page 40:  "Supplying a main entry or a substitute (e.g., his, her, its, author’s) is no longer a NACO practice."


DCM Z1 says (page 670, page 2, dated August 2016) reads:

"Precede a generic or indistinctive title with the creator’s name that would begin the authorized access point for the work."

No his, her, or its examples are given.


The "LC Guidelines Supplement to the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, 2002" does not go into this type of instruction.


Perhaps it is still permissible in MARC, but just not done per PCC (??).  Should one of the resources be updated?



Ed Kazzimir