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.


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.


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