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

Thu Apr 3 11:49:18 EDT 2014

Please don't forget to screen those blasted machine-derived vernacular
cross-references.

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Kuperman, Aaron <akup at loc.gov> wrote:

> 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>
> *To: *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV <PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>] *On Behalf Of
> *Brueck, Vicki
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:11 AM
> *To:* 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
>
> 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.*
>
>
>
> [image: NCDCRlogo319px96dpi][image: slnc-logo-180-wide]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
> ph: 650-725-9953
> fax: 650-725-1120
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
>
>

-- 

Bob Talbott
Hebraica Cataloger
UC Berkeley
250 Moffitt
Berkeley, CA 94720

We're happy as fish,
as gorgeous as geese,
and wonderfully clean in the morning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/e4bd47d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 40804 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/e4bd47d4/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5073 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140403/e4bd47d4/attachment.gif>