Fair points. However, DCM:Z1 says “Information recorded in the 046 or 3XX of the authority record should generally be justified unless it is otherwise obvious…” So can’t affiliations, occupations and dates also be read from the 670 field? I suppose there is also the argument that we only record some of this information in 670 in order to justify 046/3XX, without which we otherwise wouldn’t. but we are still doing it twice…


I know there is the option to record sources using $u and $v in 046 or 3XX, but I don’t see this often in NARs.





From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Horne, Carl Stanley
Sent: 06 April 2017 14:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA metadata fields in name authority records


Dear Richard,


To me, the 046 field and several of the 37X fields contribute directly to the first of the main functions you mentioned:


To identify a person uniquely to a user looking at the authority record.


When retrievable, the 046 field can importantly supplement the 100 field; if the 1XX access point doesn’t include dates, or includes only the person’s birth date, but the NACO cataloger has added that field, then someone whose search includes the date(s) will retrieve that authority record.


To me, the 373 (institutional affiliation) and 374 (profession) fields are often very useful when the searcher is examining an authority record.


The 374 field highlights the person’s areas of endeavor.  In older NACO records, that information has to be deduced from the work cited in the 670 field, and sometimes the user of the authority record is forced to, in turn, call up the bibliographic record to find out what that work is about or what role the person in the authority record played in the work’s preparation.


For many parts of the world (other than North America & Western Europe, where many academics are highly mobile), researchers pursue an entire career, from junior lecturer to Professor status, at a single institution.  In those parts of the world, the institutional affiliation has real value in identifying the person.


Depending on individual situations, I also include further 37X fields, when they highlight information about the person that seems to me to be ‘salient’.


That’s my perspective.




Carl Horne

Slavic and Central Eurasian Cataloger

& NACO/SACO Liaison

Indiana University Library

Bloomington, IN  47405       


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 2:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RDA metadata fields in name authority records


How useful are the terms we record in RDA metadata fields in name authority records? That is, the 046 field, and the various 3XX fields.


Given the time it takes to record, does anyone think this data is being used for anything, or is likely to be useful in any way? Not in theory, but in actual fact?


It seems to me that the main functions of a name authority record for a person are these:


To identify a person uniquely to a user looking at the authority record.

To provide a means of collocating bibliographic records with the correct person in resource discovery.

To provide enough information for automated matching in ISNI.  


The additional 046/3XX fields are, as I understand it, intended to be used in displays in a way that no system does, and to provide a machine-readable means of achieving some kind of linked data goal. However, the fields are optional in NACO and are not included consistently. There is no requirement to use controlled terms, or to establish the terms in controlled vocabularies (SACO will not even accept proposals for new LCSH used in NARs). Terms that *are* taken from controlled vocabularies (LC/NAF, LCSH,  LCDGT, etc.) are not maintained. So I’m uncertain of their value as potentially linked data.


Meanwhile, PCC is working towards an identifier-based model of identity management. ISNI matches data primarily on form of name, dates, and associated titles, and doesn’t make use of the RDA metadata fields in NARs (affiliations in particular have performed poorly as factors in algorithmic matching of identities).


The first two goals above can also be achieved just by recording preferred and variant names, and the source information we have recorded in 670 fields since the year dot (and still record to justify the content of 046/3XX).


It’s often the case that by the time everyone has implemented a new thing, the paradigm has shifted again and much of the new thing is no longer useful.


Resourcing constraints suggest that we should look at these things quite closely.






(My opinions, not necessarily those of anyone else)



Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library


Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      




Experience the British Library online at

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled


The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.


Think before you print