FYI, NACO catalogers. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, Jasmin
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <pccl...@listserv.loc.gov> On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 11:54 AM To: pccl...@listserv.loc.gov Subject: [PCCLIST] Updates to PCC Guidelines for Relationship Designators in NARs Dear Colleagues, An updated version of the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in NACO Authority Records<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/guidelines/authority-relationships.pdf__;!!IBzWLUs!VLazcLJU6ypqu3twSNj3YICTtk1PkhjWqBGmfaTIhhgl9jxVrJzLnJBgKvIvWSCmOqEBxmQQ85IQMx1sfSKGazuGTYLKyQ$> (May 2024) has been posted. The relevant changes are found in sections 13 and 15. Catalogers may now use relationship designators for related places in field 551 in NACO Authority Records, using subfield $i in combination with subfield $w value “r.” Catalogers may also update existing place name records that contain subfield $w values “a” or “b,” in field 551, to convert those code values to appropriate relationship designators from RDA Appendix K.4.3 for successive place names, merges, splits, etc. For example: 151 Oslo (Norway) 551 $w r $i Predecessor: $a Kristiania (Norway) 151 Kristiania (Norway) 551 $w r $i Successor: $a Oslo (Norway) Optionally, relationships other than sequential place-to-place relationships, including hierarchical place-to-place relationships and relationships of other entities to places may also be recorded in 551 $i, using appropriate relationship designators from RDA Appendix K (for agent-to-place relationships) or Appendix I (for work/expression-to-place relationships). Appropriate terms from these appendices may be used since Appendix L was never developed. The updated guidelines provide some additional guidance and examples. As a general reminder: catalogers may record a related entity in a MARC 5XX field only when the other entity has been established in the LCNAF. Catalogers may not record relationships in the 5XX field to entities in other vocabularies such as LCSH or Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN). If the cataloger desires to formally record a related entity in a 5XX field for an entity appropriate to the LCNAF that has not yet been established, the cataloger must establish it (see best practice number 2, page 4). Catalogers may alternatively consider recording associated place names from other vocabularies using the 370 field in NARs. The new practice may begin immediately (and some catalogers have already been doing so, as in the Oslo/Kristiania example above). The existing prohibition on the use of subfield $i found in the DCM Z1 section 551 may be disregarded, and will be removed in the next DCM update in August 2024. Additionally, links to the updated guidelines will be either revised or added elsewhere in the DCM Z1, NACO Participants' Manual, etc. at that time. The guidelines are now published in PDF format instead of Word (.docx) format, and the old Word link now contains a redirect to the new PDF version. The updates were prepared by the PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS), and approved by the PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) in May 2024. Please direct any questions or comments to SCS. Thank you, Matthew Haugen and Honor Moody SCS Co-Chairs -- Matthew C. Haugen Rare Book Cataloger | Columbia University Libraries matthew.hau...@columbia.edu<mailto:matthew.hau...@columbia.edu> | 212-851-2451 | he/they<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/universitylife.columbia.edu/pronouns__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!bbuAsRTsLf_VuFvsZHZMbP1OVDSGG4LfMoKvFwsFPk_olSRve5Tsi0JrSYO7F37k03N_vSE5_u-8_gGq6bPMneb_YlyMmY7ncJOd$>
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
