I have sometimes used 667 in this way & didn’t realize the practice had been discouraged. 

 

Thinking why it might be discouraged: maybe to avoid multiple 667s building up like little conversations in the records? (which could happen, though I’ve never seen it—we proceed to this List or email instead); or to encourage people to be confident about (rather than feel they need to defend) their decisions?  Most of the time I think confidence is the best approach, knowing that colleagues will give us the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.  However there are times when with a brief 667 explanation we really can spare each other some re-thinking, speculating, investigation of time-stamps, etc.  In those cases it is a very helpful option.

 

Mary Jane Cuneo

Serials cataloging and NACO

Information and Technical Services

Harvard Library

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading "Arnold, Malcolm"

 

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

[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