Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Hello, I'd like show us one Authority Record of our virtual library, where we are using 372 Field of Activity and how the users see it in the web. Maybe, this may seem simple because it isn't complicated, but for us is effective. In this link you see it in differents formats http://www.larramendi.es/i18n/consulta_aut/registro.cmd?control=POLI20090013810 Best regards Patricia Juez Patricia Juez García patriciaj...@larramendi.esmailto:patriciaj...@larramendi.es [cid:367170411@27112013-23C7] Fundación Ignacio Larramendi C/ Claudio Coello 123, 1ªpl 28006 Madrid Tel. 91 432 10 42 Fax. 91 432 11 13 www.larramendi.eshttp://www.larramendi.es/ Certificado ISO 9001. No imprimir si no es necesario. Protejamos el Medio Ambiente 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 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.edumailto: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.edumailto: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.CAmailto: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.CAmailto: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),
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 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 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 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 +(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] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 To: 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
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I should add--I had no idea that Stevens and Einstein were born and died the same year until after I wrote this email. And I picked those two names more or less randomly. Weird. b 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.camailto: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.ukmailto: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.CAmailto: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.edumailto: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
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Benjamin If I were writing the best practice guidelines, I’d be inclined to use “Physics” and “Poetry” in 372; the Einstein Symposium is (I assume) concnered with Einstein, and with Physics. We’ve tried to give our cataloguers a bit of guidance on the use of LCSH in NARs, in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, which can be found under Tools-Workflows-Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit. A scetion at the end is called “LCSH in Name Authority Records”. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 27 November 2013 15:12 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
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.camailto: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.ukmailto: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.CAmailto: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.edumailto: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
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I don't think either is right or wrong. In NARs we use terms from LCSH as a thesaurus, but don't necessarily follow SHM guidelines on specificity or arrays of headings, which are specific to bibliographic records. In NARs, 372 and 374 often have a post-coordinate relationship that has no formal written guidelines (though we give our take on it in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, in the Toolkit, in the section on 374). Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 14 November 2013 22:49 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity In the field of music, I somewhat disagree with you Bob. I would say Punk rock music is the field of activity for people or groups that perform that type of music. For a music critic, I am much more inclined to add --History and criticism because they aren't performers. Their field is punk rock criticism, which is expressed in LCSH as Punk rock music--History and criticism. To me the difference of the term with and without the subdivision is important and differentiating. But this is just my take on it. In my mind, I think of applying the verb do or make (an activity) to what's in the 372 field. A punk rock group does/makes punk rock music. A punk rock critic does criticism of punk rock, (s)he doesn't make punk rock itself. Adam Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries asch...@uw.edu On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Robert Maxwell wrote: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:29:10 + From: Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I agree. The field of activity is War crimes or Punk rock music. What you actually do in those fields is specified in 374 (College teachers Music critics). I don't think subdivisions such as History and criticism or Study and teaching are necessarily wrong, but I don't think they're necessary (unless, as Sara points out, your field of study is the study and teaching of a particular topic). I'm also not saying that subdivisions are never necessary. For example, I've frequently added fields of activity for historians specializing in Ancient Greece, and I do use Greece-History and possibly a subdivision even more specific depending on their specialty. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Layne, Sara Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of aboutness vs. is-ness as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), rather than to resources. And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity. If one uses Study and teaching to try to make the distinction, what happens when someone's research area*is* the study and teaching of a particular topic? Rather than the topic itself? Sara Shatford Layne Cataloger (Retired but still interested in these problems) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity You can also add subdivisions to main headings to clarify the context. For example: War crimes--Study and teaching or Genocide--History or many other ways to be more specific. I believe that LC is going to be making --Law and legislation available for use under crimes as well. See the announcement at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/crime-law-and-legislation.pdf Adam From: Robert Brattonmailto:rbrat...@law.gwu.edu Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Field of activity is pretty
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
If you really need a salve for your conscience after consigning some poor law professor to the realm of genocidal maniacs you could use the 680 Public general note: 680 ## $a So-and-so is a professor of law specializing in the adjudication of war crimes and genocide. e.g. 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 Robert Bratton Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:35 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged. You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together. Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often write about unsavory topics. When I put terms like Rape or War crimes or Family violence in the Field of activity data element I often pause and think, Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these things? Thus: 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh and 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh For the punk rock example you could also have: 372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh 374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh and 372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh 374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Robert -- Robert Bratton Cataloging Librarian George Washington University Law Library Washington, DC 20052 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Ricardo All you are doing with 372 Punk rock music, is expressing that the person has that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in relation to that field: 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh or 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh and of course you can put more than one thing in 372: 372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto: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.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabookhttp://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.ukmailto: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.
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of aboutness vs. is-ness as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), rather than to resources. And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity. If one uses Study and teaching to try to make the distinction, what happens when someone's research area*is* the study and teaching of a particular topic? Rather than the topic itself? Sara Shatford Layne Cataloger (Retired but still interested in these problems) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity You can also add subdivisions to main headings to clarify the context. For example: War crimes--Study and teaching or Genocide--History or many other ways to be more specific. I believe that LC is going to be making --Law and legislation available for use under crimes as well. See the announcement at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/crime-law-and-legislation.pdf Adam From: Robert Brattonmailto:rbrat...@law.gwu.edu Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged. You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together. Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often write about unsavory topics. When I put terms like Rape or War crimes or Family violence in the Field of activity data element I often pause and think, Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these things? Thus: 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh and 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh For the punk rock example you could also have: 372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh 374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh and 372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh 374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Robert -- Robert Bratton Cataloging Librarian George Washington University Law Library Washington, DC 20052 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Ricardo All you are doing with “372 Punk rock music”, is expressing that the person has that field of activity. It’s the 374 that tells you their occupation, in relation to that field: 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh or 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh and of course you can put more than one thing in 372: 372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto: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.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's
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.eduwrote: 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 +(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] *On Behalf Of *Santos Muñoz, Ricardo *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07 *To:* 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*
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I agree. The field of activity is War crimes or Punk rock music. What you actually do in those fields is specified in 374 (College teachers Music critics). I don't think subdivisions such as History and criticism or Study and teaching are necessarily wrong, but I don't think they're necessary (unless, as Sara points out, your field of study is the study and teaching of a particular topic). I'm also not saying that subdivisions are never necessary. For example, I've frequently added fields of activity for historians specializing in Ancient Greece, and I do use Greece-History and possibly a subdivision even more specific depending on their specialty. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Layne, Sara Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of aboutness vs. is-ness as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), rather than to resources. And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity. If one uses Study and teaching to try to make the distinction, what happens when someone's research area*is* the study and teaching of a particular topic? Rather than the topic itself? Sara Shatford Layne Cataloger (Retired but still interested in these problems) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity You can also add subdivisions to main headings to clarify the context. For example: War crimes--Study and teaching or Genocide--History or many other ways to be more specific. I believe that LC is going to be making --Law and legislation available for use under crimes as well. See the announcement at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/crime-law-and-legislation.pdf Adam From: Robert Brattonmailto:rbrat...@law.gwu.edu Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged. You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together. Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often write about unsavory topics. When I put terms like Rape or War crimes or Family violence in the Field of activity data element I often pause and think, Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these things? Thus: 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh and 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh For the punk rock example you could also have: 372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh 374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh and 372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh 374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Robert -- Robert Bratton Cataloging Librarian George Washington University Law Library Washington, DC 20052 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Ricardo All you are doing with 372 Punk rock music, is expressing that the person has that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in relation to that field: 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh or 372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh and of course you can put more than one thing in 372: 372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh 372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto: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
Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
In the field of music, I somewhat disagree with you Bob. I would say Punk rock music is the field of activity for people or groups that perform that type of music. For a music critic, I am much more inclined to add --History and criticism because they aren't performers. Their field is punk rock criticism, which is expressed in LCSH as Punk rock music--History and criticism. To me the difference of the term with and without the subdivision is important and differentiating. But this is just my take on it. In my mind, I think of applying the verb do or make (an activity) to what's in the 372 field. A punk rock group does/makes punk rock music. A punk rock critic does criticism of punk rock, (s)he doesn't make punk rock itself. Adam Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries asch...@uw.edu On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Robert Maxwell wrote: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:29:10 + From: Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I agree. The field of activity is War crimes or Punk rock music. What you actually do in those fields is specified in 374 (College teachers Music critics). I don't think subdivisions such as History and criticism or Study and teaching are necessarily wrong, but I don't think they're necessary (unless, as Sara points out, your field of study is the study and teaching of a particular topic). I'm also not saying that subdivisions are never necessary. For example, I've frequently added fields of activity for historians specializing in Ancient Greece, and I do use Greece-History and possibly a subdivision even more specific depending on their specialty. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Layne, Sara Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of aboutness vs. is-ness as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), rather than to resources. And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity. If one uses Study and teaching to try to make the distinction, what happens when someone's research area*is* the study and teaching of a particular topic? Rather than the topic itself? Sara Shatford Layne Cataloger (Retired but still interested in these problems) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity You can also add subdivisions to main headings to clarify the context. For example: War crimes--Study and teaching or Genocide--History or many other ways to be more specific. I believe that LC is going to be making --Law and legislation available for use under crimes as well. See the announcement at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/crime-law-and-legislation.pdf Adam From: Robert Brattonmailto:rbrat...@law.gwu.edu Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged. You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together. Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often write about unsavory topics. When I put terms like Rape or War crimes or Family violence in the Field of activity data element I often pause and think, Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these things? Thus: 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh and 372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh 374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh For the punk rock example you could also have: 372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh 374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh and 372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh 374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh Robert -- Robert Bratton Cataloging Librarian George Washington University Law Library Washington, DC 20052 On Thu, Nov 14,
