[Heb-NACO] Fwd: [PCCLIST] Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note

Thu Apr 3 11:31:36 EDT 2014

A very unofficial comment: often all this involves is looking at the heading, saying “yup – kosher” and deleting the 667, or at worst needing to flip a 4xx and the 1xx.  This isn’t a big scary thing.—Aaron K.

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section.
This is not an official communication from my employer

From: heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Heidi G Lerner
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:02 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Fwd: [PCCLIST] Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note

Some NACO remeinders:

________________________________
From: "Paul Frank" <pfrank at LOC.GOV<mailto:pfrank at LOC.GOV>>
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:47:56 AM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note

Hi Vicki,

You are doing the right thing.

The presence of a 667 note “THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED” in a NACO record means, at the time of re-coding to RDA, that you should evaluate the usages recorded in the 670 field(s) of the record and verify that the preferred name is based on the predominant usage according to the RDA instructions 9.2.2, Preferred name of the person.

In fact, this evaluation applies to all headings being re-coded to RDA. See the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines,<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.html> Updates to Existing Records, 3):

“If using an RDA acceptable heading in PCC cataloging, PCC catalogers are strongly encouraged to evaluate and recode the authority record to RDA whenever possible.  “Evaluate” means you should check the usage(s) of the entity as recorded in the 670 field(s) of the authority record and assess the correctness of the heading based on the usages recorded.”

LC-PCC PS 9.19.1.4 applies only to a fuller form of name, not to the preferred name itself.

Evaluation of the usages of a name and any resultant change to the 1XX would fall under the “unless otherwise changing an existing heading” clause in the LC-PCC PS.

Paul

Paul Frank
Acting Coordinator, NACO and SACO Programs
Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4230
202-707-1570
pfrank at loc.gov<mailto:pfrank at loc.gov>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Brueck, Vicki
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:11 AM
To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Guidelines for updating personal names with 667 note

Hi all,

In addition to the rest of my colleagues answers, I would like to hear Robert Maxwell and Paul Frank’s answer on this question.

There still seems to be considerable confusion about how to deal with updating personal name authority records that have the 667 note “THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED” particularly those where the heading does not reflect the usages.  In the document: Summary of Programmatic changes to the LC/NACO authority file: what LC-PCC RDA catalogers need to know, page 2 is the following statement regarding authority records with that note:

“RDA-trained PCC catalogers encountering a name authority record (NAR) with
this 667 field should evaluate the 1XX field, and the remainder of the authority
record. If the evaluation determines that the existing 1XX field can be used
under RDA as given, the cataloger should remove the 667 field, add any
additional non-heading fields, and re-code the record to RDA. If the evaluation
determines that the existing 1XX needs to be updated to be made acceptable for
use under RDA, the cataloger should revise the heading, make a reference from
the former heading when applicable, remove the 667 field, add any additional
non-heading fields of their choosing, and re-code the record to RDA.”

However LC-PCC PS for RDA 9.19.1.4 states
Existing authority records
LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Unless otherwise changing an existing heading (e.g., conflict), do not change an existing AACR2 or RDA heading merely to add or remove a fuller form of name.

I’ve read the documentation and asked questions at ALA annual in PCC meetings, but the confusion still seems to exist.  So I am hoping that this email and  its responses can give some further guidance.  When I am confronted by a personal name authority record with this 667 note should I check all usages of a personal name in OCLC (in my case) and if the 100 does not match the usages should I revise it to reflect the actual usages on bib records?  Or should I instead follow the LC-PCC PS which says not to change an existing record merely to add or remove a fuller form of name?  Does the presence of that 667 note mean that I should pretend that I am establishing this name for the first time and make the 100 match the usages and if that means changing the 100 field I should do so?  Or follow the more conservative bent of the Policy statement and not change the 100 to add or remove a fuller form of name?

To give a concrete example, I recently updated the following AACR2 compatible authority record (Rules d) with that 667 note:
LCCN: n  79021770.
Originally: 100 1_Burlage, Henry Matthew, ǂd 1897-1978

There are 71 bib records in OCLC and here are the usages:
Henry M. Burlage: 52
H. M. Burlage: 7
Henry Matthew Burlage: 2
No usage: 10

Overwhelmingly his preference is Henry M. Burlage, and so following my understanding of the Programmatic changes document I changed the 100.

Here’s the current authority record:
010  n  79021770
040  DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd NmU ǂd NcU ǂd DLC ǂd Nc
046  ǂf 18970523 ǂg 19781006
1001 Burlage, Henry M., ǂd 1897-1978
370  Rensselaer (Ind.) ǂ2 naf
372  Pharmacy ǂ2 lcsh
374  College teachers ǂ2 lcsh
375  male
377  eng
378  ǂq Henry Matthew
4001 Burlage, H. M., ǂd 1897-1978 ǂw nne
4001 Burlage, Henry Matthew, ǂd 1897-1978 ǂw nne
670  His Fundamental principles and processes of pharmacy, 1944.
670  Pharmacy's foundation in Texas, c1978: ǂb t.p. (Henry M. Burlage)
670  Marquis who's who WWW site, Jan. 14, 2011 ǂb (Henry Matthew Burlage; b. May 23, 1897, Rensselaer, Ind., d. Oct. 6, 1978; professor of pharmacy)
670  OCLC, April 1, 2014: ǂb (access points: Burlage, Henry Matthew, 1897-1978; Burlage, Henry Matthew; Burlage, Henry M. (Henry Matthew), 1897-; Burlage, Henry M.; Burlage, H. M.; usages: Henry M. Burlage, Henry Matthew Burlage, H.M. Burlage)

So should I change the 100 to match the usages, or not change it since it only involves a fuller form of name?

I greatly appreciate all of your comments,
Vicki

Vicki Brueck
Senior Cataloger
Resource Management Services Branch
State Library of North Carolina
4641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C.  27699-4641
vicki.brueck at ncdcr.gov<mailto:vicki.brueck at ncdcr.gov>
Office: (919) 807-7451  Fax: (919) 733-1843

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CF4F30.459D1260][cid:image002.gif at 01CF4F30.459D1260]

--
Heidi G. Lerner
Metadata Librarian for Hebraica and Judaica
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
e-mail: lerner at stanford.edu<mailto:lerner at stanford.edu>
ph: 650-725-9953
fax: 650-725-1120

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/3e264e01/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 40804 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/3e264e01/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5073 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/3e264e01/attachment.gif>