Print

Print


John,
I think cataloging is a lot more interesting job when we can do things like contact authors. I suppose it reduces productivity numbers. But I would be more interested in a cataloging career if I knew I could do such a thing.

Just my two cents.
Ted

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar?

Sorry for the empty email a moment ago.

We've had this discussion on dates vs. occupations and other qualifiers on various lists in the past.  Do we really have time for finding an email address, writing an email, waiting an indeterminate amount of time before finishing an authority record?  Can we do that at large scale?  We need to focus more on identity management and not so much on the string.  Use the information that's in front of us or that can be easily found.  I don't know if there's any evidence that users use or are even aware of our headings.  Most searching seems to be done by keywords.  The dates and qualifiers are there mostly for other librarians.  For our internal purposes we still need unique access points, but I often find occupations more useful.  It doesn't matter if the person does more than one thing.  We can include other occupations in 374 fields.  We can also use qualifiers like (Writer on ...) when necessary.

------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salisbury, Preston
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 14:32
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar?

It may not be better in terms of what users are likely to know, but it is certainly better in other ways. People very rarely only do one thing their entire life. I've seen subfield $c (Translator) for authors who happened to also translate. What about someone who is an engineer, an athlete, and writes fiction? If you have a work of fiction by $a Doe, Jane $c (Engineer), doesn't that increase confusion? At least with a birth date, people would know they didn't know. With $c, people would be think they knew when they didn't, and you are probably more likely to get multiple authority records for the same person.

We could and should add note fields to help users determine which person is which. But we shouldn't do something that is a short term gain and long term loss, like overuse of the $c is.

That said, I've tried to contact authors and had e-mails bounce back. I've tried to contact authors and never heard anything back. Sometimes the subfield $c is necessary. But it shouldn't be the go-to, and particularly for foreign names, it seems to be becoming the go-to.

Preston

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 1:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar?

Now I know that birth date is our go to primary choice when available, but how exactly is it better in identifying a person than an occupation qualifier?   Are users likely to know a person's birth date while scrolling down a list of otherwise identical names? Just asking!

Adam Schiff

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Faka.ms-252Fo0ukef-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpsalisbury-2540LIBRARY.MSSTATE.EDU-257C38af314935cf402751d208d6b217d013-257Ced51dbb0af8645a29c9773fb3935df17-257C0-257C0-257C636892212690327094-26sdata-3Dbx1-252FCoy6T5Wxq90lf-252BuSNiqbPRyNGJZ7fNofCeSF2bY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=O9-UIVab7e9YxpBphmOmeEQruoCpRWXNPKDBg9tfb88&m=hYiRT1apxltdxnHDbdkCJdfL7SVm-DbhIGVQQB-Smu0&s=lYKpqgSx94S7FmANAU5Ww2Hdqe1LjWOtEliQWQmyToo&e=>

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Sharon Domier <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: PhD candidate = scholar?


Yang, please rethink this. Just write to the person and ask for a year of birth (or take it from their MA thesis).  There are already so many errors for Chinese names that adding (Sinologist) would only make things worse and people will assume that they are all sinologists, even though many are linguists or Chinese language pedagogists.



Sharon

________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:57:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: PhD candidate = scholar?

Thanks, Adam! Yes, either would work fine. I have decided on "Sinologist."

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar?

Wouldn't East Asianist work?  Or how about Sinologist?

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: PhD candidate = scholar?

I need a qualifier for a personal name to break a conflict. The person is currently a PhD candidate in East Asian Studies at a university and has co-authored a Chinese textbook. He might have taught Chinese as an AI or lecturer,  so $c (Chinese teacher) would work, but the information is merely inferred from the resource, not proven.

As an alternative, I was just wondering  if $c (Scholar of East Asian Studies) or $c (Scholar of Chinese language) might be safer to use.

Web3's definition of a scholar (see definition 2a): "one who by long systematic study (as in a university) has gained a high degree of mastery in one or more of the academic disciplines."

Yang