In case you mean recording "Women composers" in the 374 field you may want to know that this is not in accordance with the LC-PCC-PS for

Use terms for profession or occupation without indication of the person’s gender, nationality, religion, etc., unless such characteristics are part of the definition of the term itself (e.g., a Rabbi is a Jewish religious leader).  Prefer gender-neutral terms to gender-specific terms when possible (e.g., Actor instead of Actress and Fire fighter instead of Fireman). Information not included as part of the profession or occupation term may be appropriate for other elements, such as Other designation associated with the person, see [emph mine]

An example from same rule:

100 1# $a Allen, Debbie, $d 1950-
374 ## $a Choreographers $2 lcsh
not 374 ## $a African American choreographers $2 lcsh
not 374 ## $a Women choreographers $2 lcsh

in solidarity, 

Netanel Ganin
Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty
Brandeis University
(781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]

My pronouns are he/him/his

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Michael Colby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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?


Michael Colby
Principal Cataloger
The Library
University of California, Davis
[log in to unmask]