Task Group to Formulate Or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy

Recommendation N-13: 37X $v and $u

Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues

N-16: 37X: Subfields $v and $u

Recommendation, March 15, 2012

Summary of issues:

When should 37X subfields $v and $u be used? Should data be recorded there in addition to or in lieu of 670 subfield $a? Can subfield $u substitute for a citation in subfield $v?

Task Group recommendations:

The Task Group believes that the principles behind the use of field 670 subfield $a (Source citation) also apply to all instances of subfield $v (Source of information) in the additional information fields where it has been defined (046, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, 381). For how to construct source citations in subfield $v, see the related recommendation N-17.

Use 670 subfield $a to cite the source consulted where information was found that justifies the 1XX authorized access point and the 4XX and 5XX references.

Use subfield $v in 046, 37X and 381 to cite the source consulted that justifies the information recorded elsewhere in that field. If the record already contains a 670 field that cites the source and the information, subfield $v in these fields is not required. Optionally, catalogers may cite the same source in $v as in the 670 $a.

Examples:

100 1_ $a Chabrol, B. $q (Brigitte)

400 1_ $a Chabrol, Brigitte

100 1_ $a Rinaldi, Stefania

370 $a Naples, Italy

374 $a Conductor

670 $a Schumann, C. Piano concerto, ℗2005: $b label (Stefania Rinaldi)

670 $a RK Artistic Management WWW site, Feb. 20, 2012: $b under Artists, Conductors (Stefania Rinaldi; b. Naples, Italy; conductor)

Use of subfield $v (Source of information) vs. subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier):

When a decision has been made to record source information in field 046, 37X or 381, use $v. The addition of $u is optional, but encoding $u does not substitute for encoding $v.

Recommendation N-17: 37X $v

Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues

N-17: 37X: Formulating $v

Recommendation, March 15, 2012

Summary of issue:

How should catalogers formulate source citations in the 046, 37X and 381 fields?

Task Group recommendation:

Follow the same basic citation principles when recording data in subfield $v of fields 046, 37X and 381 (Source of information) that currently apply to field 670 subfield $a (Source citation).

Supply specific citation information (page number, sub-page of website) in subfield $v if, in the cataloger’s judgment, this greater specificity is needed to find the information within the source cited.

If the information is taken directly from the source and reproduced exactly, there is no need to provide usage information. If the information is provided in a different form from that reproduced, record that difference in a 670 subfield $b (Information found). Do not use subfield $v for found information or citation of usage.

For tangible sources:

If the information was derived from a tangible source (e.g., a print book, removable digital media) subfield $v should contain sufficient information for a cataloger to find the item cited in a catalog or bibliographic database. This can usually be limited to title proper and imprint or other date. If that combination is not unique the title citation may be preceded by the preferred access point form of the author's name.

For online sources:

Provide information sufficient to find the resource via a search engine. Include either title and publication date (if it is a formally-published resource, such as an e-book) or a suitable description of the document and date accessed (for a less formal resource). Optionally include subfield $u (see related recommendation, N-16).

For example:

100 1_ $a Lazzarini, Sérgio G.

372 $a Industrial relations $2 lcsh $v Author's English-language resume, viewed Feb. 22, 2012 $u http://www.sergiolazzarini.insper.edu.br/indexelazza.html

046 $f 19650502 $v Swedenborg and osteopathy, 2012, ECIP data view

100 1_ $a Fuller, David, $d 1965-

670 $a Swedenborg and osteopathy, 2012: $b ECIP t.p. (David B. Fuller, D.O., F.A.A.)

Recommendation N-21: Reciprocal records and Relationship Designators

Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues

N-21: Creating reciprocal records when using Appendix J and Appendix K relationship designators in 5XX fields

Recommendation, February 29, 2012

Summary of issue:

Should NACO policy permit the use of relationship designators in lieu of establishing NARs for 5XX references?

Task Group recommendation:

The Task Group recommends no change in the current NACO policy; all 5XX references should be supported by separate NARs.

Recommendation N-22: Complex Pseudonyms

Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues

N-22: 5XX fields for complex pseudonyms

Recommendation, March 13, 2012

Summary of issue:

Should NACO continue the current practice of using $w nnnc for complex pseudonyms, or should NACO begin to use the $w r $i alternate identity approach as described in RDA 30.1.1.3 and RDA 29.5.1.3, thereby eliminating a “base” heading, and providing all references on all records?

Task Group recommendation:

The Task Group recommends continuing the current practice of using $w nnnc for complex pseudonyms, with the understanding that continued developments of best practices for connecting structured data in a linked manner, and RDA’s further exploration of FRBR Group 3 entities and FRSAD, may make the $w r $i alternate identity approach more desirable in the future.

Continuing the current practice of using $w nnnc for complex pseudonyms allows for a collocating point to be established for biographies and criticism, and reduces the number of references linking alternate identities.

Recommendation N-23: 5XX: Use of $w r $i for Hierarchical Superior Bodies

Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues

N-23: 5XX: Use of $w r $i for hierarchical superior bodies

Recommendation, March 14, 2012

Summary of issue:

When and how should NARs show relationships to hierarchical superior bodies?

Task Group recommendation:

The Task Group recommends the use of 5XX $w r $i to record the relationship between the corporate body established in the 110 and immediately superordinate bodies.

Use subfield $i terms from RDA Appendix K. Do not make reciprocal relationships on the NAR for the superior body.

A majority of the Task Group recommends recording this relationship only when the immediately superordinate body does not appear in full or abbreviated form in the preferred access point. Providing a cross-reference from a subordinate corporate body to its immediate superior body should be a matter of cataloger's judgment, informed by the question of whether the relationship is already evident from the form of the heading itself. The majority feels that this is the correct approach, as it limits redundancy in authority records.

A minority of the Task Group recommends always recording the hierarchical relationship. The purpose of the 510 field is to provide a means by which a machine can collocate and present to users the subordinate bodies of a hierarchically superordinate body. It is not easy, and sometimes not possible, for a machine accurately to infer a hierarchical relationship from a preferred access point. For example, the subfield $a in the preferred access point for a body entered subordinately is not necessarily the immediately superordinate body. In order to ensure that the machine can reliably and consistently collocate subordinate bodies, the presence of the 510 field is necessary, even if to a human being it appears to be redundant. An additional reason to include the 510 field for the immediately superordinate body in all cases is that it would reduce the decision-making required by catalogers.

Examples (new field indicated by italics):

110 2_ $a Sibley Music Library

410 2_ $a University of Rochester. $b Sibley Music Library

410 2_ $a Eastman School of Music. $b Sibley Music Library

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Eastman School of Music

110 2_ $a Eastman School of Music

410 2_ $a Eastman School of Music, Rochester, N.Y. $w nnaa

410 1_ $a Rochester, N.Y. $b University. $b Eastman School of Music

410 1_ $a Rochester, N.Y. $b Institute of Musical Art

410 2_ $a Institute of Musical Art (Rochester, N.Y.)

410 1_ $a Rochester (N.Y.). $b Eastman School of Music

410 2_ $a University of Rochester. $b Eastman School of Music

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a University of Rochester

110 2_ $a Imagineers (Group)

410 2_ $a Walt Disney Imagineering, Inc.

410 2_ $a WDI

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Walt Disney Company

110 2_ $a Dryden Flight Research Facility

410 2_ $a Ames Research Center. $b Dryden Flight Research Facility

410 2_ $a NASA Dryden

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Ames Research Center

But not (fields not to include indicated by italics):

110 2_ Walt Disney Company

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical subordinate: $a Imagineers (Group)

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical subordinate: $a ESPN, Inc.

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical subordinate: $a Touchstone Television

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical subordinate: $a DisneyToon Studios

[etc.]

110 2_ $a Dryden Flight Research Facility

410 2_ $a Ames Research Center. $b Dryden Flight Research Facility

410 2_ $a NASA Dryden

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Ames Research Center

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a United States. $b National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Differences between majority and minority recommendations:

110 2_ British Broadcasting Corporation. $b Broadcasting Research Dept.

Majority opinion – do not include; minority opinion – include:

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a British Broadcasting Corporation

110 2_ Council for the Arts at MIT

410 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. $b Council for the Arts

Majority opinion – do not include; minority opinion – include:

510 2_ $w r $i Hierarchical superior: $a Massachusetts Institute of Technology