Print

Print


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]>