This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------31140D7D938969B35A809DB3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm sending this again, because I'm told it did not go through.
Ana
--------------31140D7D938969B35A809DB3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:52:14 -0400
From: Ana Cristan <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Library of Congress
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 670 citations review
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello everyone,
As a result of the 670 discussion taking place on this list in the
last few days I think it's time to review the basic guidelines for the
670 field. I am using a Q and A technique and if you think it useful,
I'll mark it up an put on the NACO home page for future reference.
Please note Question 6 which was not part of this discussion but was
asked of me at ALA. If anyone has any other questions, be sure to
write.
Ana
Q1. When is it necessary to provide more than one 670 in an NAR for a
personal name heading being newly established which does not conflict
with another name in the NAF?
A. In general for names that do not conflict the only time it is
necessary to cite another source beyond the item-in-hand when
establishing a personal name is:
1. When the rules for establishing personal names require consultation
with a reference source (e.g., AACR2 22.1B, 22.3B2, 22.3B3)
2. When it is necessary to justify an addition to the name heading
(fuller form of name, dates, title, etc.) and that information was found
in a source other than the item-in-hand (e.g., during the normal course
of searching in the database in which the work is being performed).
3. When it is necessary to justify a cross-reference and that
information was found in a source other than the item-in-hand (e.g.,
during the normal course of searching in the database in which the work
is being performed).
4. When it is necessary to record a variant which would NOT require a
cross-reference (e.g., a variant in the 2nd element to the right of the
comma cf. LCRI 26.2) and that information is found in a source other
than the item-in-hand (e.g., during the normal course of searching in
the database in which the work is being performed).
Q2. When is it necessary to look in other sources (beyond the
item-in-hand and the database in which I catalog) for variants, fuller
forms of the heading or dates, etc.
A. Generally, only when the heading conflicts with another in the NAF
and the item-in-hand does not provide enough information to break the
conflict or as noted in Q1 when the rules call for consultation with a
reference source.
Q3. When do I use the citation "LC in OCLC" or "LC in RLIN"?
A. PCC NACO trainer's have been encouraged to de-emphasize the use of
this citation and have tried to eliminate any reference to this in the
examples in the training material except to alert catalogers that they
may find this citation in older NARs. This is part of the
simplification of the 670 field which came about as a result of the
studies carried out in 1993 by the CCC's Task Group on Authorities and
the subsequent CCC/CPSO 670 Task Group.
Q4. Should we use the designation PCC in OCLC or PCC in RLIN in a 670
to cite a heading found on a PCC (042=pcc) record?
A. No, there is no convention for citing PCC records in the 670 and at
this point it is not cost-effective to add another layer of complexity
to citations in the 670 field.
Q5. Doesn't it "help" or give more "authority" to the heading being
established if a 670 is cited showing that the heading was formulated
the same as the new 1XX and has been used on bibliographic records
(especially if it's an LC bib. record)?
A. No, although some catalogers seem to think so. This appears to be a
hark-back to the early days of NACO, but as noted in the response to
Q3, since 1993 every attempt has been made to reduce the amount of time
spent constructing 670 fields. To cite the occurrence of a heading that
does NOT provide any additional information in an additional 670
(regardless of its provenance) adds to the time it takes to create an
authority record and is contrary to the PCC principle of "the timely
creation and maintenance of authoritative, cost-effective bibliographic
and authority records."
Q6. OCLC and RLG have developed programs to "machine assist" the
creation of NARs and as a result there is more information in the 670
citations than ever before, how much clean-up is required in this field?
A. The Z1 (yellow pages) supplement to the MARC 21 format is being
revised to take this question into account. The guidelines will
instruct catalogers that "in order to maintain the cost effectiveness of
these programs, use judgement" in deciding what information can remain
or what should be deleted.
--
Ana Cristan
Cooperative Cataloging
Regional and Cooperative Cat. Div.
Library of Congress, LM537
Washington, DC 20540-4382
(202) 707-7921 (fax): (202) 707-2824
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
--------------31140D7D938969B35A809DB3--
