Print

Print


"Men" belongs to both the gender and age categories in LCDGT, while "Males"
is strictly gender. Best practice would prefer "Males."

Stephen

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Lasater, Mary Charles <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Amy,
>
>
>
> Thanks so much for putting this together. I find it very useful.
>
>
>
> One of the things I do each month is to ‘check’ a load of authority
> records that includes many created by catalogers at Vanderbilt. Today I ran
> into the use of the term “Men” instead of “Males” as  $2 lcdgt
>
>
>
> Class web shows both terms in lcdgt. Are both valid for the authority
> record field 375?
>
>
>
> Any advice on what should be the ‘best practice’?
>
>
>
> Mary Charles Lasater
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Amy Turner
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 9, 2017 10:53 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] RDA metadata fields in name authority
> records--best practices
>
>
>
> Reading the definition of “best practice” in Wikipedia, I see that
> different best practices are applicable to different institutions.  A wide
> variety of best practices for the optional RDA fields have already been
> developed, both formally and informally.   I would like to summarize three
> levels.
>
>
>
> 1.      Minimalist.  The fields are optional, with the possible exception
> of the 046.  (The date is a core element for personal names, and the
> current NACO training materials state that the 046 is required, but since
> RDA is not written in terms of tags, one could argue that the date in the
> 1XX and/or 670 would meet the core requirement).  A strict minimalist
> approach would forbid use of the fields, to save time in both cataloging
> and training, and be done with it.  At Duke, we are a little removed from
> this.  We say that the fields will not be covered in training, but
> catalogers independent in NACO may use them.  This is a fuzzy line, because
> the fields are actually emphasized in the latest version of the training
> materials.  But I, as NACO coordinator and trainer, use only the 046 and do
> not train in any of the others.   As Mary Charles Lasater pointed out, the
> new fields can significantly increase training time for NACO, which was
> already substantial.
>
> 2.      Moderate.  This is well described in the British Library Guide to
> Name Authority Records
>
> (https://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/pdfs/british_library_guide_to_name_
> authority_records.pdf).
>
>
>
> To quote:
>
>
>
>         *Guideline on Research*
>
> BL practice: balance must be struck between fullness and efficiency, when
> deciding what to record at the element level. Record only those elements
> that are:
>
>     Readily ascertainable
>
>     Useful
>
>     Expedient to record
>
> Readily ascertainable: only do the amount of research needed to identify
> the entity, and to create and justify unique authorised and variant access
> points. Only include in 046/3XX fields appropriate data that has been
> discovered in the course of this research. Do not do extra research in
> order to complete additional 046/3XX fields.
>
> Useful: be selective in recording data in 046/3XX fields. For example,
> only record significant dates in 3XX |s and |t. In 373, only record
> institutions with which a person has a significant connection. In 372 and
> 374, only record significant fields of activity and occupations. Any of
> these fields may be omitted if useful data is not readily ascertainable.
>
> Expedient to record: only search the LCSH file briefly, for suitable
> terms. If a specific term is not available, use a broader term. If no term
> is readily ascertainable in a quick search, omit the field. Make full use
> of Aleph short keys and drop down menus to insert elements into the
> authority record.
>
>
>
> 3.      The sky’s the limit.  I have a couple of examples of ARs with
> optional fields that go beyond the purposes of authority control as
> outlined by Richard Moore when he started this thread: n 2010043877 and
> no2011152077.
>
>
>
> Discussion thus far indicates that which level a library chooses must be
> more an attempt to forecast the future than a reflection of current needs.
> Of course, the amount of resources available also comes into play.  This is
> the main reason that Duke has taken the minimalist approach.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Michael Colby
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 06, 2017 2:08 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] RDA metadata fields in name authority records
>
>
>
> Mary Charles Lasater mentions:
>
>
>
> "A few ‘best practices’ might be useful.  "
>
>
>
> With which I wholeheartedly agree.
>
>
>
> Locally, I have established a few "best practices."  For example, we put
> extra effort into authority records for certain categories, such as
> entities affiliated with the University and special collections. Hence, I
> would include our institution in a 373 field for faculty authors. We have a
> special collection of women composers, so I include a 374 field for them,
> in the hope that someday (soon?) this field will enrich searching.
>
>
>
> But, of course, more widely agreed upon best practices would make a lot
> more sense. We are all about cooperation, aren't we?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Michael Colby
> Principal Cataloger
> The Library
> University of California, Davis
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242