Print

Print


If it’s of interest, we wrote some material on this distinction for our cataloguers, in our British Library Guide to RDA Name Authority Records (in Global workflows in the RDA Toolkit). It reflects the BL’s current use of LCSH, but the principles could apply to any controlled vocabulary. The Contents have a link to a section at the end called LSCH in Name Authority Records, which in turn discusses the Relation between 374 and 100 |c.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jesse Lambertson
Sent: 21 July 2017 14:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

This is an interesting example of the discordance that shows up sometimes between RDA and PCC practice.

If you are able to join up for our next Legal Cataloging Forum (at least remotely via skype or something) hosted at LC, I am proposing an overlapping idea on which to share a few thoughts.

Thank you (and happy weekend everyone)

Jesse

 

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

To expand on Adam’s point, discussions of RDA have always distinguished between recording data as an element or as part of an access point.  RDA does this as well in 9.16.1.3 and many other instructions, e.g. “Record a profession or occupation as a separate element, as part of an access point, or as both.”  The use of the term “element” in 9.19.1.6 seems to be rather sloppy, since it glosses over this distinction, but the PS maintains the distinction. 

 

I agree with Adam that LCDGT is preferable for recording occupations in 374, though it lacks many terms found in LCSH.  I still think an occupational thesaurus with terms in the singular would have been even better.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 16:52


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

RDA doesn’t contemplate that the data recorded in the separate element might be different from the element used as an addition to an authorized access point.  That is why all of the examples are in the singular in 9.16 and 9.19.1.6.   PCC decided that data in the separate element ought to be in a controlled form (which allows for URIs leading to the authority record for that controlled form).  Once you make that decision, there’s no longer a direct correspondence between the form used as a qualifier and the controlled term recorded as a separate element.  As John Hostage pointed out, (Law teacher) is not a controlled form, so it hardly matters whether one uses that or (Law professor) or (Professor of law) or (Law instructor) or anything else since none of those match Law teachers from LCSH.

 

Incidently, I am of the opinion that we ought to be preferring LCDGT over LCSH for source terms for occupation, since that vocabulary is purpose-built to be a class of persons/demographic group thesaurus, and occupational terms are explicitly labelled as such in it.  There has been an LCDGT proposal for Law teachers waiting to be acted upon since May 2016.  Hopefully it will appear on an upcoming monthly list.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

If you read the text of RDA 9.19.1.6, it very clearly refers to the access point qualifier as an “element”:

“Include a profession or occupation (see 9.16) if needed to distinguish one authorized access point from another. Include this element when the person’s date of birth or date of death is not available (see 9.19.1.3).”

 

The word “element” does not refer only to MARC field 374.

 

Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian

(949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 | [log in to unmask]

Law Library · University of California · Irvine

www.law.uci.edu/library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 11:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

How is it confusing? The instruction applies to recording the profession or occupation as an element, i.e. in field 374.  The examples show the 100 field as a way of contrast and to show that you don’t have to use the same term.

 

When PS 9.19.1.6 refers to 9.16.1.3, it is also making this distinction: the latter is about recording the element, not the addition.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 14:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

I find that example a bit confusing.  It seems to contradict the instruction, “Prefer a controlled vocabulary, such as LCSH or MeSH, when recording profession or occupation terms.”

 

 

100 1#

$a Thompson, Simon $c (Professor)

374 ##

$a College teachers $2 lcsh

374 ##

$a University and college faculty members $2 lcdgt

 

 

Following the rubric of the PS, shouldn’t the qualifier be “College teacher”? Is this example showing that you can use other terms (if you prefer) even if there are valid terms in LCSH?

 

(Don’t get me wrong: I would much prefer to use “professor” instead, as I know plenty of profs who teach at universities, not college—and that distinction matters to them, if not us.)

 

 

--Ben

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

I believe LC-PCC PS 9.16.1.3 applies to recording a profession or occupation in field 374.  In fact, one of the examples given uses (Professor) in the access point.  It would be very difficult to use controlled vocabularies for such additions, and what would be the point? Also, (Law teacher) is not a controlled term.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 13:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] (Professor of law) as personal name qualifier

 

I just came across the following name, established by LC:

Siegelman, Peter (Professor of law)

https://lccn.loc.gov/n2009079304

 

When I establish personal names for law professors and a qualifier is needed, I generally use (Law teacher) based on the LCSH term, since LC-PCC PS for 9.16.1.3 indicates that controlled vocabulary terms are to be preferred.  There is no applicable LCDGT term I can find.  Does anyone know what controlled vocabulary “Professor of law” might have come from, or other rationale for using it?  I’m not going to change this one, but thinking about what I should use in the future.

 

Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian

(949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 | [log in to unmask]

Law Library · University of California · Irvine

www.law.uci.edu/library

 




--

Jesse A Lambertson

Head of Cataloging & Metadata

Georgetown University Law Library

[log in to unmask]
Ph: 202-662-9167


 
******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
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