FAQ on the 670 (Sources found) in name authority records (NARs)
for NACO
- What is the required punctuation and style
in the 670 field? There is no required punctuation
and style in the 670 field. There is some prescribed content (per
the MARC 21 Authority Format) and some suggested punctuation
(see no. 2-4 of this FAQ). Page 2 of the 670 section of the LC
Descriptive Cataloging Manual (DCM) Z1 supplement to the MARC
21 Authority Format states" "conventions in regard to
punctuation and style, unless a specific direction is given ...
are not prescriptive ... Punctuation and style need not be consistent
from record to record as long as the information is clear and
accurate."
The NACO Participants' Manual (NMP), in the section
on Introduction and Basic Format, states: "As of the 1996
revision of the DCM Z1 'style and punctuation' are not prescribed."
For historical purposes and because catalogers will continue
to find NARs in the authority file which contain "old style"
citations, the NPM and the DCM show varied examples.
Note: DCM Z1 does ask catalogers to give the abbreviated
forms of names of months when giving dates in the 670 (e.g.,
when recording the date a database was searched or authors'
birth dates). This helps to facilitate international participation
in NACO.
- What are the prescribed elements in the
670 field? The MARC 21 Authority Format
defines the 670 (sources found) field as a repeatable variable
field which is comprised of non-repeatable subfields $a and $b.
Subfield $a (source citation) is always required; however, subfield
$b (information found) is necessary only when information is being
provided in support of the formulation and/or identification of
the 1XX, 4XX and sometimes the 5XX fields. DCM Z1 prescribes four
elements:
In subfield $a of the 670:
- The title proper of the work being cataloged.
- The date of publication or edition of the work.
In subfield $b:
- The specific location(s) of the information found
when the work cited is other than a reference source.
- The information found (enclosed in parentheses)
Note: DCM Z1, reminds catalogers that: "the NAR does
not serve as a biographical sketch of a person ..." and to "use
judgement to determine how much data to record ..." The ideal
670 is cogent and concise yet complete.
- Is a subfield $b always required in a 670?
As noted in question no. 2 of this FAQ, the MARC 21 Authority
Format requires a subfield $a; however, subfield $b is necessary
only when information is being provided in support of the formulation
and/or identification of the 1XX, 4XX and sometimes the 5XX fields.
For example if the name as established in the 1XX is
contained in the title of the item being cataloged (subfield
$a), it is not necessary to repeat the name in a subfield $b.
When creating or updating uniform title NARs it is seldom necessary
to add a subfield $b to the NAR unless recording research. Nonetheless,
in both these cases the inclusion/repetition of information
in a subfield $b is not prohibited.
- Is the inclusion of the main entry in the
670 totally forbidden? No. According to Z1, if the
title of the item being cataloged is generic, the main entry should
be included.
- What would a "typical" 670 for an NAR look
like? A typical 670 would include the following prescribed
content and suggested punctuation:
- A monograph:
- 670 $a La pasión de Octubre, 1996: $b t.p. (P.J.
González Cuesta) back flap (Pablo González Cuesta,
b. Seville, 1969)
- A database reference source:
- 670 $a OCLC database, Jan. 23 2001 $b (hdg: González
Cuesta, Pablo Juan; usage: P.J. González Cuesta)
- OCLC as well as many local systems
have macros to "machine assist" the creation of NARs and as a
result there may be more information in the 670 citations than
ever before, how much clean-up is required in this field?
The 670 section of the DCM Z1 states: "In authority records
created using an automated authority generation program, the
670 information may include the main entry name ... it is recommended
that catalogers accept the additional information as generated."
Catalogers should use judgement in deciding what other information
can remain or what should be deleted.
- When is it necessary to provide more than
one 670 (Sources found field) in an NAR for a personal name heading
being newly established which does not conflict with another name
in the name authority file (NAF)?
In general, when newly establishing a personal name that does
not conflict with another heading in the database within which
one is cataloging, it is not necessary to cite another source
beyond the item-in-hand except in the following situations:
- When the rules for establishing personal names require
consultation with a reference source (e.g., AACR2 22.1B, 22.3B2,
22.3B3)
- When justifying an addition to the name heading (fuller
form of name, dates, title, etc.) and that information was
found in a source other than the item-in-hand (i.e., during
the normal course of searching in the database in which the
work is being performed).
- When justifying a cross-reference and that information
was found in a source other than the item-in-hand (i.e., during
the normal course of searching in the database in which the
work is being performed).
- When recording a variant which would not require
a cross-reference (e.g., a variant in the 2nd element to the
right of the comma, cf. LCRI 26.2) and that information is
found in a source other than the item-in-hand (i.e., during
the normal course of searching in the database in which the
work is being performed).
- When do NACO procedures require cataloger
to look in other sources (beyond the item-in-hand and the database
in which one is cataloging) for variants, fuller forms of the
heading or dates, etc.?
Generally, only when the heading conflicts with another in
the NAF and the item-in-hand does not provide enough information
to break the conflict or as noted in response to question 7
of this FAQ, when the rules call for consultation with a reference
source.
- Is it true that NACO catalogers should not
use the citation "LC in OCLC" in a 670?
PCC NACO trainers have been encouraged to de-emphasize the
use of this citation. Newer training materials eliminate such
examples except to alert catalogers that they may find this
citation in older NARs. This is part of the simplification of
the 670 field which came about as a result of the studies carried
out in 1993 by the CCC's Task Group on Authorities and the subsequent
CCC/CPSO 670 Task Group.
- Should we use the designation "PCC in OCLC"" in a 670 to cite a heading found on a PCC (042=pcc)
record?
No, there is no convention for citing PCC records in the 670
and at this point it is not cost-effective to add another layer
of complexity to citations in the 670 field.
- Doesn't it "help" or give more "authority"
to the heading being established if a 670 is cited showing that
the heading was formulated the same as the new 1XX and has been
used on bibliographic records (especially if it's an LC record)?
No, although some catalogers seem to think so. It is AACR2r,
the LCRIs, and usage which provide the authority for establishing
a heading. The use of "LC in ..." is a holdover from the early
days of NACO when forms were processed manually. As noted in
the response to question 9 of this FAQ, since 1993 every attempt
has been made to reduce the amount of time spent constructing
670 fields. To cite the occurrence of a heading that does
not provide any additional information in an additional
670 (regardless of its provenance) adds to the time it takes
to create an authority record and is contrary to the PCC principle
of "the timely creation and maintenance of authoritative, cost-effective
bibliographic and authority records."
- If I search the LC database should I provide
an "LC database" 670 citation?
Searching the LC database is not a NACO requirement; however,
NACO reviewers are aware that often catalogers will search the
LC database in order to report BFM. With the implementation
of LC's Online Catalog users will encounter many different types
of bibliographic records that they may not have encountered
when searching under the previous system. NACO catalogers are
urged to read the
announcement prepared by CPSO and the FAQ
on reporting BFM for a more in depth explanation of records
found in the current LC database.
In response to this question, NACO cataloger may provide a
670 with a "LC database" citation but should do so only if the
information provides additional information in support of the
formulation of the 1XX, etc. Remember when citing headings labeled
[from old catalog] to include that legend in the 670.
Example:
670 $a LC database, date searched $b (hdg: Poschmann, Bernhard,
$d 1878-1955 [from old catalog]; usage not given)
- Now that subfield $u has been
implemented in the 670 field, it it OK to include URls at will
in NARs?
Within reason. Although subfield $u was authorized for use
in NARs on February 1, 2006, NACO catalogers are expected to
judiciously apply its use. Optional use of the 670$u should
be for those cases when the source contains significant information
related to the established heading that cannot be cited succinctly
in the 670. Remember—citing a URI in 670$u does not take
the place of the requirement to cite relevant data in subfields
$a and $b of the 670 (i.e., enough information to support the
heading/references, which will be available to future users
even if the Internet site itself disappears).
- May I also use the URI in subfield $a
or $b of the 670 in NARs?
Generally, no. Corporate names and/or title strings may have
the general appearance of URIs (usually without the Internet
protocol designation, e.g., http://), and may be cited as names
and titles in 670$a as needed (cf. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/corpfaq.html#9
for more information). In order to be “actionable,”
URIs found in $u should include the protocol, e.g., “$u
http://www.stephenking.com
|