 |
 |
Ted, The terms "Scholars" and (especially) Researcher are not uncommon in NARs. How are we to discourage their use? Nancy On 5/10/2018 7:21 AM, Gemberling, Ted P wrote: > > I hope we will discourage people trying to fill in all the fields just > so there’s something there. I remember when we first started assigning > 3XX’s, people were putting “Scholars” in the 374. I would think that > would usually be useless. Maybe it was justifiable when we were being > trained to use the new fields. > > Now, “Scientists” might be appropriate for figures in the 16^th and > 17^th centuries, because that was before science became specialized. > For example, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691 could appropriately be called > just a “scientist,” because his interests were so varied. If you look > at his authority record (n 79006775,) some of the fields of science > he was interested in are put in as 372’s. If there was more than one > scientist with his dates (highly unlikely), I suppose we could use > “Chemist” or “Physicist” to distinguish him. > > Ted Gemberling > > UAB Libraries > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> > *On Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie > *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:54 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs > > This is an interesting discussion. Locally, we decided early on to > record 374 Authors or Editors only if they are described as such in > other sources of information. See no2015149548 for an example. > > Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell > *Sent:* Thursday, 10 May, 2018 10:35 > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs > > I'd just like to point out that the RDA element recorded in MARC 374 > is RDA 9.16, "profession or occupation" and is defined as a > persons "vocation or avocation." Nowhere does the definition narrow > itself to "what the person gets paid for". So no, I don't agree that > "editors" should only be used for persons who work in the publishing > industry. If a person is known for editing, it's perfectly fine to > record it. If a person is an amateur clarinetist and is known for it > (perhaps the local community orchestra put out a recording of her > playing a concerto) it is fine to record "clarinetists". As for > "authors", while I mainly record it myself for authors of belles > lettres, as others have mentioned, I would hesitate before laying down > the law about it and saying other usages are wrong. So I don't think > we should be removing data from records unless it is clearly incorrect. > > Aaron said: > > It would be nice if PSD (and PCC) spent a decade or so applying these > fields and working out the problems, BEFORE setting them loose in the > cataloging world (so next time I have my time machine I’ll go back and > tell them). > > Well, that's actually what we're doing right now. And I think a decade > or so (at least) is what we need to find out what the best > applications are for these fields, and we're only half way through. I > think it's premature to begin questioning others' judgments about some > of this stuff, especially since we don't yet have any systems that I > know of that make use of the data in a meaningful way. I'm not talking > about the long-predicted post-MARC paradise. MARC-based library > systems could perfectly well make use of the RDA data we're adding to > the authority records for searching and finding resources, but they > aren't yet, at least not very much. Until we have systems that make > use of the data to help database users I think it's difficult to say > this or that data is or is not useful. > > Bob > > Robert L. Maxwell > Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568 > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine > ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. > Snow, 1842. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Nancy Sack > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:13 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* 374 field in NARs > > Hi all, > > I have questions about the use of certain terms in 374 fields of NARs. > Would you record "Editors" in the 374 field for a person who edited, > say, a book on neurotransmitters? What about recording "Authors" for > someone who wrote a book on European history? Does it make ever make > sense to record "Compilers"? > > In the course of correcting NARs I frequently come across records like > these and I don't know whether to update them or not. To my mind, > "Editors" makes sense only for people who work in the publishing > industry; otherwise, it's a agent-work relationship and not an > occupation. I think only authors of belles lettres are correctly > identified as "Authors"; otherwise that too is a relationship > designator. I'm not sure anyone is a compiler by profession but I > could be persuaded otherwise. > > Do you agree? If so, should I be removing those terms as I encounter > them? (Such NARs are only reported to me if they contain additional > errors; there are probably a lot more in records without other > mistakes.) Is this something the PCC can weigh in on and remind > NACOers of? > > Thanks. > > Nancy > > -- > Nancy Sack > Cataloging Department > University of Hawaii at Manoa > 2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822 > phone: 808-956-2648 > fax: 808-956-5968 > e-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>