 |
 |
I'd be all for freeing up the 667 to be used at cataloger's discretion (i.e., stop discouraging it). Just like Wikipedia has a field for free text explanation of modifications made to a page, catalogers should be encouraged to annotate a NACO record when choices made in establishing/revising access points aren't easily deduced. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Libraries Northwestern University www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 847.491.2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 2:43 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Heading "Arnold, Malcolm" Thinking about this conversation the last couple of days, a few legitimate reasons were given why the form in Arnold’s 1XX might have been changed. It turns out they weren’t applicable in this case, but there are in fact cases where it’s not at all obvious why a 1XX form was changed, occasionally leading to heated discussions and recriminations. I wonder if it might not be a good idea to have a field where the cataloger making a change could explain why the change was made. I know NACO has not done this until now, but it might forestall needless speculation and complaining. Possibly 667? For example 667 Authorized access point changed from A to B because of unresolvable conflict in XYZ database. Or whatever the reason. 667 has been available all along for this sort of thing but NACO policies have discouraged (if not forbidden) notes explaining a cataloger’s reasoning for making a choice such as changing a 1XX, or for that matter, the choice of form when the entity is first established. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568