On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, John Riemer wrote: > At ALA this past June MARBI gave final approval to extending use of the > 856 field to authority records, and the corresponding revisions to the > USMARC format documentation are due to appear next month. It is now up > to specific groups such as the PCC to make decisions on the situations > in which the field will be used in authority records. [snip, snip, snip] > > The subfield $3 could be used in 856 fields to point to supplementary > material about the body, such as historical information or the latest > mission statement for the body. Such access may be more efficient and > cost-effective than selecting and inputting excerpts of the same data > into the authority record's 678 field. If a library, faced with > organizing large numbers of corporate annual reports (in electronic > form), is already to the point of cataloging at minimal level, a great > deal of time could be saved by adding URLs to the corporate authority > records, preceded by "annual report" as a mere genre-like term in a > subfield $3. [snip] > > While these bibliographic control techniques, including use of subfield > $3 and the 856's repeatability, are theoretically applicable in all > types of authority records, I am proposing that we adopt their use > within NACO, primarily for corporate names. Some examples: > > 110 20 Library of Congress. $b Copyright Office (n79-117971) > 856 4_ $u http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright > > 111 20 International Conference on the Principles and Future > Development of AACR > 856 4_ $u http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/ > > A secondary priority would be application of this technique to > professors' personal web pages and portraits of famous people. > > This expanded use of authority records opens up a lot of exciting > possibilities for extending the reach of traditional bibliographic > control efforts, simultaneously increasing the convenience of the > cataloger and improving the value of the authority record. > > Is there any reason why the PCC should not adopt usage of the 856 field > in daily NACO work? > > John J. Riemer > Assistant Head of Cataloging > University of Georgia Libraries > Athens, GA 30602 > (706)542-0591 > (706)542-4144fax > [log in to unmask] > Many of Mr. Riemer's points are well-made, and I have snipped them. The paragraph I kept seems to be pointing toward advocating a practice that I am less willing to support -- that of substituting a pointer to a document that is being cited as a reference source for a citation containing the desired information. I'm not sure why Mr. Riemer mentioned the 678 field, unless he is advocating that its use be resumed, since the USMARC Authority Standards instruct NACO participants not to use it. This leaves the 670 field as the available field. 670 field are meant to document and justify the choice of heading, and also references for name headings. The tacit expectation is that information recorded there is fixed, or that the citation at least identifies the time frame in which the information in subfield b was true. If I understand Mr. Riemer correctly, he would consider it sufficient to justify the choice of name for a corporate body, for example, by simply providing a link to the body's Web site or a page therein. He addresses the concern with changing URL's; I would be more concerned with changes in the data at the Web site. I have no problem with providing the links as a *public* service, and his idea of an authority record standing in for a bib record for a particular site in some instances has merit. I'm not ready to buy linking to a dynamic entity as the means of documenting headings and references without some permanent indication of the time frame in which the desired information was true. If my understanding of this is flawed, I hope Mr. Riemer or others will clarify. Thanks. Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger Gaylord Music Library Washington University in St. Louis [log in to unmask]