Ach!  Youíre correct Netanel.  This isnít the first time Iíve flipped occupation and activity in my head.

Mark K. Ehlert
University of St. Thomas Libraries

Sent from Outlook for iOS
_____________________________
From: Netanel Ganin <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Unnecessary changes
To: <[log in to unmask]>


Mark, 

Although field of activity is indeed not on the list of valid additions to an AAP as found in 9.19.1, I would think that 'Educator' [as opposed to 'Education'] is a profession/occupation and thus is permitted under 9.19.1.6.

best,

Netanel Ganin

he/his/him

Any opinions in this email are solely those of Netanel Ganin and not to be construed or represented as those of any institution.




On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Ehlert, Mark K. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I would add thatField of Activity was a candidate element for AAPs in RDAís greener days, but no longer isóthat is, if ď(Educator)Ē is intended to be a Field of Activity term.  Thereís no 372 field in the Bradley record to confirm.  Touching the 100 field would seem to be justified if following bullet point #5 in Robertís list below.

 

--

Mark K. Ehlert                 O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas

  Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue

                              St. Paul, MN 55105

<http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>

- Alma: NA02 // Primo: MT NA01

 

  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by

the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of

Verona," Act I, Scene iii

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]GOV]On Behalf Of Robert Bratton
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Unnecessary changes

 

I believe what John Hostage was originally getting at is:  should this AAP have been changed?

 

I think the answer is:  No, unless you think the qualifier used was incorrect or misleading, because the string is in valid RDA form.  The LC/PCC practice is to "generally" not change valid RDA AAPs.

 

The RDA 9.19.1.1 PS:

 

----

LC practice/PCC practice: Generally, do not change the authorized access point in an existing authority record coded "rda" that is fully established unless one or more of these conditions applies:

 

1. a date of death is added to an authorized access point that has an open date of birth, or a date of birth is added to an authorized access point that has only a date of death

 

2. the authorized access point must be changed to break a conflict with another authorized access point

 

3. an error in the authorized access point must be corrected (e.g., "1979-" instead of "1970-")

 

4. a person has requested a change to their authorized access point that can be accommodated by current cataloging instructions

 

5. there has been a change in cataloging instructions affecting the authorized access point.

 

On rare occasions, a person requests that the formulation of their authorized access point be changed (e.g., to remove a date of birth or a fuller form of name). LC and PCC should attempt to honor such requests by changing the appropriate fields in the record, and indicate in a note that the person's preference has been followed.

----

 

If someone thought the qualifier was misleading, they should have included the former AAP as an 4xx cross reference with $w nne when they created a new AAP (with correct punctuation).

 

Robert

 

--

Robert Bratton

Cataloging Librarian

Jacob Burns Law Library

George Washington University

Washington, DC