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.
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
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?
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822
e-mail: [log in to unmask]