Print

Print


And there are established LCSH topical instances:

150 Aggada $v Commentaries

150 Post-communion prayers $v Commentaries

Stephen

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Not all sacred works are title only.  There are some that are
> author/title, e.g.  Baháʼuʼlláh, $d 1817-1892. $t Kitāb al-aqdas.  So
> for these, $v Commentaries is a valid construction in LCSH.
>
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> University of Washington Libraries
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on
> behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 9:38:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Form subdivision--Commentaries
>
>
> “--the proper solution is to mark the subdivision usage itself as
> invalid”
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree, if the commonly used subject validation program could detect
> it, for instance, if “600” present, then “$v Commentaries” is invalid.  My
> point is, as thousands of new bib records enter OCLC daily and then pass
> onto thousands of individual institutions, would it be possible for
> OCLC/FAST to catch and mark them as questionable or invalid (thus no ‡2
> fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723)? One would think it would be both efficient
> and economical to do so. Otherwise, the effort would be thousand fold more
> expensive.
>
>
>
> Yang
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Thomas
> *Sent:* Friday, August 04, 2017 12:04 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Form subdivision--Commentaries
>
>
>
> I think one thing that contributes this problem is that people assume a
> subject heading string is valid if it is controllable in OCLC.  The
> subdivision authority record for Commentaries includes a 073 field relating
> it to SHM 1188 (Sacred works), but unfortunately the authority records for
> sacred works don’t have coding to match up with this.  OCLC can’t tell what
> is a heading for a sacred work, so it allows the subdivision to be applied
> more broadly than is appropriate.
>
>
>
> *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]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *McDonald, Stephen
> *Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 8:27 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Form subdivision--Commentaries
>
>
>
> The automated FAST generation in OCLC relies on the subject headings being
> correct.  This is not a special issue with the term Commentaries; it is a
> problem with every subject heading which is incorrect or invalid.  As you
> point out, the system cannot tell whether a wide range of subdivisions are
> used correctly.  There is no good reason to single out the FAST term
> Commentaries for special attention and work-arounds for correction.  If
> there is a way to detect that a subdivision is used incorrectly, then the
> proper solution is not to have a work-around fix for the FAST terms--the
> proper solution is to mark the subdivision usage itself as invalid.  If
> that cannot be done in a practical way, then there is also no practical way
> to detect it for the FAST generation.
>
>
>
>
> Steve McDonald
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 11:03 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Form subdivision--Commentaries
>
>
>
> I need to point this out because lately I have been seeing “655 #7
> Commentaries. ‡2 fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723” generated for faulty subject
> headings everywhere, after names (600),  name/titles (600), secular
> literary works (630), non-literary works (630). Or has there been a policy
> change on the use of “$v Commentaries” recently that I am unaware of?
>
>
>
> Under SHM H1188 [Sacred works], there is an A-Z list of subdivisions that
> can be assigned. This is the only place we find the form subdivision $v
> Commentaries. That is to say, “$v Commentaries” can only be used for sacred
> works entered under the title in the bib (630 0 [Title]). For secular
> literary works (whether entered under title or author), there is a
> different list (H1155.8). Neither “$v Commentaries” nor “$x Criticism and
> interpretation” can be used for a work that is a commentary on such works.
>
>
>
> Now, It’s understandable that the machine cannot tell if “630 00
> Anacreontea ‡v Commentaries” is valid or not. But what about “600 00
> Aristotle $v Commentaries” or “Aristotle. $t Poetics. $v Commentaries”?
> Would it be too difficult for OCLC to catch this type of mistakes and not
> to generate “655 #7 Commentaries. ‡2 fast ‡0 (OCoLC)fst01423723”
> automatically? Because, by definition, this form subdivision applies only
> to sacred works.
>
>
>
> Just an observation.
>
>
>
> Yang
>
> PUL
>
>
>



-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242