I believe Adam is talking about adding $i to 370 fields that are already being placed in records under current policy.  I agree that it would make sense to re-evaluate whether we should continue to add such information in a linked-data environment, but we are not quite there yet.  The supposed purpose of 3xx fields in authority records is to aid identification.  How much of that information will still be useful for identification under a linked data environment will partly depend on what linked data resources are available to provide alternatives for verifying identification.  I don’t think we are ready to re-evaluate what information should go into an authority linked data metadata set quite yet.

 

In the meantime, 370$i might be useful as an aid for identification.  Adam has a point that 370$f is too vague currently.  I’m not sure how useful 370$f is for identification without checking the 670 to see what the relationship is.   I think I like the idea of 370$i, with the understanding that things will likely change when we get into a mature linked data environment.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Use of 370 $i in bib and authority records

 

I’m just wondering, is the authority file supposed to take the place of Wikidata and IMDb and similar sources?  If we truly believed in linked data, wouldn’t we just link to those sources instead of duplicating all this work in a format this is not really designed for linked data?

 

------------------------------------------

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]

+(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 Adam L Schiff
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 02:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Use of 370 $i in bib and authority records

 

Good one, Eduardo!  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a filming location recorded in an authority record, but why not? I immediately thought of differentiating setting from filming location: 

 

$i Setting: $f San Francisco (Calif.) $2 NAF

$i Filming location: $f Vancouver (B.C.) $2 naf 

 

$i Setting: $f Wyoming $2 naf

$i Filming location: $f Canadian Rockies (B.C. and Alta.) $2 lcsh 

$i Filming location: $f Alberta $2 naf 

 

Adam

 

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

aschiff @ uw.edu


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Eduardo Fojo <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:55:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Use of 370 $i in bib and authority records

 

How about $i Filming location for motion pictures? For example:

 

130 0_ $a Moonraker (Motion picture)

370 __ $i Filming location: $f Parque Nacional Tikal (Guatemala) $2 lcsh

370 __ $i Filming location: $f Veneto (Italy) $2 naf

370 __ $i Filming location: $f John F. Kennedy Space Center $2 naf

 

Eduardo Fojo

Media Cataloger Librarian, FIU Library

[log in to unmask]


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Adam L Schiff <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Use of 370 $i in bib and authority records

 

Note: This message originated from outside the FIU Faculty/Staff email system.

 

Hello PCC colleagues,

 

We at UW have started to use subfield $i in the 370 field to indicate the setting of a work, in both bib and authority records.  For example:

 

100 1# Richler, Mordecai, ǂd 1931-2001. ǂt Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz

370 ## ǂg Canada ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂi Setting: ǂf Montréal (Québec) ǂ2 naf

 

100 1# Richler, Mordecai, ǂd 1931-2001, ǂe author.

245 14 The apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz / ǂc Mordecai Richler.

260 ## Toronto, Ont. ; ǂa New York, N.Y. : ǂb Penguin Books, ǂc 1995.

370 ## ǂi Setting: ǂf Montréal (Québec) ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂg Canada ǂ2 naf

 

100 1# Alexie, Sherman, ǂd 1966- ǂe author.

245 14 The Lone Ranger and Tonto fistfight in heaven / ǂc Sherman Alexie.

264 #1 New York : ǂb Grove Press, ǂc [2005]

264 #4 ǂc ©2005

370 ## ǂi Setting: ǂf Spokane Indian Reservation (Wash.) ǂ2 lcsh

370 ## ǂi Setting: ǂf Seattle (Wash.) ǂ2 naf

 

Recently, I've been thinking about other possible uses of subfield $i, realizing that most uses of 370 $f (other associated place) could potentially benefit from more specific information about the nature of the relationship to a place.  We've long included workplace locations in personal name authority records, typically using $f.  I tell our catalogers that if all they know is where a person works, don't assume it's their place of residence and use $f.  But since $f can mean many kinds of things, I wonder if we should develop some recommended terminology for use in subfield $i?  For example, for workplace location, we could record:

 

100 1# Alexander, Becky ǂc (Atmospheric scientist)

370 ## ǂc United States ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂi Work location: ǂf Seattle (Wash.) ǂ2 naf

372 ## Atmospheric chemistry ǂ2 lcsh

373 ## University of Washington. Department of Atmospheric Sciences ǂ2 naf ǂs 2005

 

"work location" also happens to be the name of the property in Wikidata that we use to record where a person works/has worked. 

 

I'm wondering what others think about using $i to explain the nature of the type of place recorded in $f?  Would folks like to see PCC develop a list of terms to use in the subfield $i?  If we do that, URIs could also potentially be created that could be used in $4.  There already are several URIs for setting that can be used: http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/stg and http://id.loc.gov/entities/relationships/setting.  There's also an example in the PCC Task Group on Linked Data Best Practices Final Report on page 11:

 

 

Wikidata has both the property "work location" and an item for the concept of workplace location, so URIs are available for either of them, although I think for linked data purposes we would want to use the property URI in $4:

 

·  workplace (Q628858) : work location

physical location where someone works

·  concept URI: http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q628858

· 

·  work location (P937)

location where persons were active

·  concept URI: http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P937

 

We could use a Wikidata URI in $4 instead of one maintained by LC, e.g.:

 

370 ## ǂi Work location: ǂf Seattle (Wash.) ǂ2 naf ǂ4 http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P937

 

I'm wondering what other types of places people use 370 $f for?  I know I have seen $f used for burial places.   For example, we might do:

 

100 1# Baldwin, James, ǂd 1924-1987

370 ## Harlem (New York, N.Y.) ǂ2 naf

370 ## New York (N.Y.) ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂb Saint-Paul (Alpes-Maritimes, France) ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂc United States ǂ2 naf

370 ## ǂi Burial place: ǂf Hartsdale (N.Y.) ǂ2 naf

 

Burial place also has a Wikidata property URI that could be used in $4: http://www.wikidata.org/entity/P119

 

I think I've also seen 370 $f used for places where a person attended school.

 

My short list so far:

 

$i Setting

$i Work location

$i Burial place

$i School location

 

Any others?  Should we start more regularly using $i when 370 $f is used in bib and authority records? 

 

I welcome your thoughts!

 

Adam Schiff


Adam Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

(206) 543-8409