Do not assume every instance of "Editors" or "Authors" or "Compilers" is applied blindly or unwisely.

Please be careful if removing fields, and consider each record on a case-by-case basis.  Do not remove the 374 fields for "Editors" (at least in my NARs).  I use this for technical editors whose occupation is an editor, and who edits publications in which he/she is prominently named (on the title page and cover and title page verso and citation note and bibliographical references).  In these cases, those persons work for the issuing government bodies that compile the data, do editing of the material, and make decisions on how it will be published.  These editors are not third-party "publishing house" editors.  I would prefer to use "Technical editors" but there is not LCSH term yet (although the topical field exists:    372  Technical editing ǂ2 lcsh).  In this case, I don't think it matters whether the person is called editor as a mere job title or true profession.  I found it important to apply the 374 as a means of identifying the person from others with similar or shared names, which is the purpose of the field, and I don't think we should be judging that person's job status.

I don't think it is always the fault of just an inadequate source citation, but a lack of understanding of the nature of some types of publications.  Should we input a 670 field saying "Hey, this is an important editor to us, not a stereotypical commercial/industry editor" to avoid someone else from bushwhacking records?

As for "Authors", please do not remove it just because the writer has written non-literary works.  If the person has written works in an occupation for "regular" professions, he/she may have a side-job, second job, or job in retirement as a literary writer.  So then the term "Authors" is legitimate along with other "regular" professions in 374.  The person may or may not have written while serving in those other occupations, but "Authors" will represent a different phase in the person's life.  I have had real examples of this.  Anyway, I think there should be a separate heading for "Literary authors" (for belles-lettres) since it would be more clear to the general population and to librarians--at least for the sake of NAR application.

Moreover, I have come across cases where a person is a non-literary writer, but actually writes for a living in a field that he or she is an expert in.  The person may or may not practice in the field concurrently.  In such cases, I believe 374 "Authors" is valid even if the person never writes belles-lettres.  I recently worked with an author who was known as a big advocate and writer about a particular field.  How is that person not a professional author?  But then again, this _author_ was well known for having written a large body of fiction, too, so again "Authors" applies.  The obituaries and articles emphasize both facets of her writing career.  (That a professional educator or teacher who writes in that field and also writes belles-lettres or children's readers seems to be common.)

Ed Kazzimir

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Quill
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:42 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.


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]<mailto:[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.


Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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?




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]>

Experience the British Library online at<>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :<>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.<>
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]<mailto:[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