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

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

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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