Print

Print


Ach!  You’re correct Netanel.  This isn’t the first time I’ve 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 RDA’s greener days, but no longer is—that is, if “(Educator)” is intended to be a Field of Activity term.  There’s no 372 field in the Bradley record to confirm.  Touching the 100 field would seem to be justified if following bullet point #5 in Robert’s 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