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
[log in to unmask]
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?
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.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602