The practice of some libraries of putting “Authors” in an NAR if the individual gets  $e Authors in the bib record is unwise.  If an individual is a “Financial writer” that should be the term in the 374.  If one includes the BT of the BT of the BT, then everyone would be “Persons” in the 374 which is silly and useless.  --Aaron

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs

 

Aaron

 

Among the narrower terms of “Authors” are:

 

Travel writers

Horticultural writers

Financial writers

Technology writers

and Journalists

 

So I think “Authors” can be fairly broad. The BT does suggest a narrower interpretation, though I think this discrepancy is due to the way that LCSH has evolved and had a structure imposed on it. And of course we are using terms from the system, rather than the system as a whole, which was designed for a different purpose.

 

We’d use the most specific available term for a kind of author, obviously. And the term “Author”, in library authority data, is going to be of limited value …

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kuperman, Aaron
Sent: 10 May 2018 14:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs

 

If you encounter someone who compiles books for a living, and one can’t find something more specific, than I suppose “Compilers” could go in the 374. 

 

“Authors” refers to belles lettres. The is clear from the authority structure in LCSH.  If the 670’s show a professional scholar (what I usually encounter) who has written nothing but professional literature, then “author” is wrong. If I see “authors” in the 374, I expect to find something other than scientific/professional literature, and would investigate if the NAR is really for the same person whose resource I’m dealing with (while not excluding the possibility of a professor who also writes novels).

 

The 374 and 372 can evolve and probably we should change them, especially if it goes from a broader to a narrow career.  Someone who fresh out of law school is  “Lawyers” but who 20 years down the road is a “Criminal defense lawyers” should result in changing the 374 (and the 372 should change from “Law” to “Criminal law”), but if they change profession to become, as an example, a “Politicians” or “Actors”, that is a new profession and should generate an additional 374. In Anglo-American countries, are “Judges” a type of “Lawyers” (they are usually not in the rest of the world), or to use a non-law example, are “Legislators” a type of “Politicians”?   There are plenty of questions that need to be resolved.  If a new resource appears to suggest that 374 (or 372, or other 3xx) data has changed, the NAR should change to reflect the most recent data, but how should it change needs to be clarified.

 

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).

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Quill
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs

 

Hi Nancy,

There are legit reasons for “Compilers.”

One of my colleagues, also a cataloguer, has a monograph where she compiled the glossaries from our published standards into one item that we use as a source specified in the 650_7 field.

 

I second Richard’s sentiment about not changing data that other participants have added.

 

Thanks,

Mary

 

Mary Quill

Content Catalogue Administrator

Project Management Institute

Newtown Square, PA

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 2:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs

 

I agree, though I’d always be wary about changing data that other participants have added, unless it’s clearly and egregiously wrong. Maybe they know more than I know, and the only fault is an inadequate source citation.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

________________________

Richard Moore

Authority Control Team Manager

The British Library

                                                                       

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104                                  

E-mail: [log in to unmask]      

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Sack
Sent: 10 May 2018 04:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 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]


 
******************************************************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*****************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*****************************************************************************************************************

Think before you print