 |
 |
Yes, that's the thing about $c's. If someone was born in 1931, he will stay born in 1931. He may not continue to be a Chinese teacher forever. I know we have gone over this ground a lot, as John said, but I hope we can at least minimize the number of headings using $c (occupation). Ted From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 7:59 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar? Just a quick follow-up. I did send the author an email message for the year of birth, as Sharon had urged. The person replied quickly: He would not give his d/o/b, but would prefer the use of "Chinese teacher" as qualifier. Thus, [name] $c (Chinese teacher), would that be good enough? It's anybody's guess as to what career a young Ph. D. candidate would pursue in future. For now, the access point is unique in NAF. Yang From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacKenzie Haring Smith Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:51 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar? I agree with Ted. I don't mind taking the time to email an author for additional info. I have a sort of standardized email that I use when asking authors for information, so it doesn't really take that much extra effort. I find that if I don't receive a response after a day or two, I probably won't receive one at all. At that point, I move on with the NAR and establish the author with other identifying info. Also, more times than not, when an author gets back to me, they are appreciative that someone has reached out to them. ----- MacKenzie Haring Smith Monographs Cataloger/DBM Liaison University of Georgia Libraries (706) 542-0590 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ________________________________ From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Gemberling, Ted P <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 3:17:03 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PhD candidate = scholar? 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Hostage, John Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:03 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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