Print

Print


Nancy,
Here’s a thought on that. I don’t know if this lends itself to operationalizing in any way, but to me, it comes down to thinking of myself as a professional trying to solve problems rather than a clerk filling in blanks on forms. To me, Scholar or Researcher do not add anything beyond what is in the AAP, and the terms are so general it is questionable they really help differentiate the name.

On the other hand, I suppose one could propose what we need is an army of clerks filling in every possible field on authority records. Then some brilliant systems designer someday can harvest all that information. But we don’t have that army, and would all those authorities really be worth creating?

Let’s look at the question from the opposite angle. Can someone’s qualifier be too specific? I remember some years ago we had a discussion about n 2015187569:

Williams, Chris ǂc (Research and knowledge exchange impact officer)

Notice the qualifier doesn’t come from a thesaurus. The danger with a qualifier like that is it may not represent more than part of the person’s career. Later he may even object to the qualifier when that ceases to be his occupation. It seems this authority was created just so there’d be an authority for him. I would rather not create an authority in a case like that.

Just my two cents.

Ted Gemberling

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nancy Sack
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 374 field in NARs

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 16th and 17th 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]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]>