Someone pointed out to me off-list that $y 20th century cannot be directly applied to headings for classes of persons. My apology for the error.
--Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that the individual represents as well? [Made up examples:] 111 $a International Einstein Symposium 372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh 111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference 372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf 372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Robert I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”. We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs. Regards Richard _________________________ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk> ________________________________ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41 Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hi John, I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding name AAPs as one of the facets of their field of activity? I believe current NACO policy is that we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political jurisdictions -- how are they any different? So long as this data element is defined as "field or fields of endeavour, area or areas of expertise, etc." where else would we record it? I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation 372 $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh 374 $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh 372 $a Human rights $2 lcsh 374 $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the person's/body's output. I think the problem is that the data element is called "Field of activity." Robert On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage <host...@law.harvard.edu<mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>> wrote: I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374. In most cases, a person doesn’t need both. Some people seem to have gotten much too specific in these fields. An authority record does not have to be the same as a Wikipedia article. What purpose does that serve? The examples in RDA 9.15 are fairly general. I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician. I would say he was a dictator and a head of state. If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want to make very narrow attributes. To use a made-up example, if there were a heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.” I would question whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it should be “Skydiving”, which would have been on the parent record. Does anyone think it makes sense to use a corporate body name as a field of activity? ------------------------------------------ John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu<mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Hello again. I’m wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I’m facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, nor the use I’ve seen out there gives me a clear view. The main bump in the road is field 372. Let’s say I’m working on Joseph Stalin. I’d like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I’d like to relate him with communism. So, recording “Communism” in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism. Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a musician (374), specialized in doing punk-rock music, or Am I indicating that he/she is a music critic (374), expert on punk-rock music? Thanks in advance for opinions and experiencies. Ricardo Santos Muñoz Depto. de Proceso Técnico Biblioteca Nacional de España Tfno.: 915 807 735 ************************************************************************** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/> The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled ************************************************************************* The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk<mailto:postmas...@bl.uk> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. ************************************************************************* Think before you print
