Regarding the NAR n 2018042155, which is established as “Wang, Wei $c (Law teacher),” this NAR was not correctly established. The cataloger had the date of birth (1971) in the work cat, so the cataloger should have used it as part of the authorize access point per LC-PCC PS for 126.96.36.199, Optional Addition, New Authority Records. Unfortunately, in this case the date of birth is not enough to distinguish because there is another NAR (no2007090727) already established as “Wang, Wei, $d 1971-“ and that is clearly not the same person. Since we only have the year of birth, another element is needed in the authorized access point, so the heading becomes “Wang, Wei, $d 1971- $c (Law teacher).” I have updated the NAR accordingly
NAR n 2018043234, which is established as “Wang, Wei, ‡d 1971 ‡c (Law teacher).” I have updated the NAR to reflect this and also changes our bibliographic record.
Regarding the NAR n 2018043234, which is established as “Wang, Wei $c (Law teacher) $c (Writer on industrial laws and legislation),” as others have noted, there should not be two subfields $c in a row. While I appreciate the reference to the Chinese website from Yang, I cannot read Chinese so that doesn’t help me as much as I would hope to revise the NAR. I will refer this NAR to a Chinese cataloger for revision. Shockingly, we do not yet have a NAR “Wang, Wei, 1969-“ so if that is the author’s date of birth, the NAR will be revised to that form.
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
This. Subfield $c is getting way overused. It should probably be used as a last resort, when there is no other way to differentiate names AND contact with the person is not possible. Instead, it gets thrown into records almost at will.
I saw one a few months back that was a South American playwright or poet (I can’t remember which right now.) He had translated something once upon a time, and so the NAR was his name subfield $c (translator). To have an author of a book be Name $c (translator), $e author is obviously problematic.
In a case like this case of Wang, Wei, what if he later writes on something else? Should we have $c (Law teacher and writer on industrial laws and legislation) as part of an authorized access point on a work or fiction or a musical work?
Tl;dr: Subfield $c really needs to be a last resort.
Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
Mississippi State University
Adam wrote: (…probably should be revised to:).
Just in case someone would revise the access point, according to this Chinese webside (Douban: https://book.douban.com/subject/27023205/), the author was born in 1969.
Subfield $c is not repeated when the fields would be adjacent to each other. That LC authority is incorrectly formulated and probably should be revised to:
Wang, Wei ǂc (Law teacher and writer on industrial laws and legislation)
"Writer on industrial laws and legislation" would be considered either an occupation or an other distinguishing characteristic. The field of activity would just be Industrial laws and legislation.
Subfield $c is repeated when something else is in between the two subfields, as in the AACR2 example Black Foot, $c Chief, $d d. 1877 $c (Spirit) or this RDA one: Lodge, Oliver, ǂc Sir, ǂd 1851-1940 ǂc (Spirit)
The MARC 21 format itself specifies that you don't use two consecutive subfield $c's. See https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adx00.html, where it says:
Multiple adjacent titles or words associated with a name are contained in a single subfield $c. Subfield $c is repeated only when words associated with a name are separated by subelements contained in other subfields.
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Ed M. Kazzimir <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 10:23:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Multiple Professions/Occupations/Fields of Activity in Personal Name Access Point
When it is necessary to identify a person by two professions or fields of activity in a qualifier, are these terms entered into a single $c or in separate subfields?
For example, there is this name authority record by LC, where the two :
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC
100 1_ Wang, Wei ǂc (Law teacher) ǂc (Writer on industrial laws and legislation)
Are there separate $c subfields because "Law teacher" is technically an occupation and "Writer on ..." is a field of activity?
There are a lot of existing authority records where the professions/occupations/etc. are enclosed in a single subfield, such as:
100 1_ Smith, Simon ǂc (Teacher and poet)
The MARC authority format allows for repeated $c subfields, but the example given shows different types of usage (different types of titles and other terms):
0_ $a Black Foot, $c Chief, $d d. 1877 $c (Spirit)
I cannot find instructions guiding us to a preferred method. I do not see an example in RDA (and LC-PCC PS) 188.8.131.52. Should the Smith example above be?
100 1_ Smith, Simon ǂc (Teacher) ǂc (Poet)