From tachtorn.meier at yale.edu Wed Aug 2 11:59:13 2023 From: tachtorn.meier at yale.edu (Meier, Tachtorn) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:59:13 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Message-ID: Dear collective wisdom, I came across this inconsistent usage of the term "usage" in NAF; see below for snapshots from the authority records. Is it a plural or singular form, or either? Best, Wheat [cid:image001.png at 01D9C538.C10FD120] [cid:image002.png at 01D9C538.C10FD120] [cid:image003.png at 01D9C538.C10FD120] [cid:image004.png at 01D9C538.C10FD120] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 8643 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 6839 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 9832 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 9542 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From brenna.bychowski at yale.edu Wed Aug 2 12:08:39 2023 From: brenna.bychowski at yale.edu (Bychowski, Brenna) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:08:39 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Wheat, Personally, I've only used "usage." Even though neither the NACO Participants' Manual nor DCM Z1 gives an example that has multiple forms of name, they both call for "usage" (singular), and that's what I've been following. Best, Brenna From: YUL-NACO On Behalf Of Meier, Tachtorn Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:59 AM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Dear collective wisdom, I came across this inconsistent usage of the term "usage" in NAF; see below for snapshots from the authority records. Is it a plural or singular form, or either? Best, Wheat [cid:image001.png at 01D9C53A.11F2A530] [cid:image002.png at 01D9C53A.11F2A530] [cid:image003.png at 01D9C53A.11F2A530] [cid:image004.png at 01D9C53A.11F2A530] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 8643 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 6839 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 9832 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 9542 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From dominique.bourassa at yale.edu Wed Aug 2 12:50:15 2023 From: dominique.bourassa at yale.edu (Bourassa, Dominique) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:50:15 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Wheat and collective wisdom, I've also seen usage and usages. If you do a command line for dx:rda AND nt:usages AND cs:dlc, you'll find lots of records touched by LC that include the word usages in 670. One important thing Paul Frank told me is not to worry so much about 670 fields: the important thing is to make sure the information justified in a clear manner. All you need to know is make sure your colleagues looking at your record will understand what you mean. In this case, if one write usage or usages, catalogers will understand. One thing I was thought at some point is that usage in 670 should not be all the names a person used. It should be the predominant form of name. Some people disagree with this. Personally, if I can really figure out a name is used more than another, I record in 670: predominant usage: ...; other usage:... I think people understand what I mean and it helps justify the form of name I use as the basis of an authorized access point. Cheers, Dominique From: YUL-NACO On Behalf Of Bychowski, Brenna Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 12:09 PM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers Subject: Re: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Hi Wheat, Personally, I've only used "usage." Even though neither the NACO Participants' Manual nor DCM Z1 gives an example that has multiple forms of name, they both call for "usage" (singular), and that's what I've been following. Best, Brenna From: YUL-NACO > On Behalf Of Meier, Tachtorn Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:59 AM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers > Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Dear collective wisdom, I came across this inconsistent usage of the term "usage" in NAF; see below for snapshots from the authority records. Is it a plural or singular form, or either? Best, Wheat [cid:image001.png at 01D9C53D.DD048C40] [cid:image002.png at 01D9C53D.DD048C40] [cid:image003.png at 01D9C53D.DD048C40] [cid:image004.png at 01D9C53D.DD048C40] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 8643 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 6839 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 9832 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 9542 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From tachtorn.meier at yale.edu Wed Aug 2 15:05:44 2023 From: tachtorn.meier at yale.edu (Meier, Tachtorn) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 19:05:44 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Brenna, Dear Dominique, Thank you for your opinion! It would be helpful if the NACO Participants' Manual and DCM Z1 had more examples that covered different scenarios. And it is also helpful to know that the LC prioritizes content over formatting. Best, Wheat From: YUL-NACO On Behalf Of Bourassa, Dominique Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 12:50 PM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers Subject: Re: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Hi Wheat and collective wisdom, I've also seen usage and usages. If you do a command line for dx:rda AND nt:usages AND cs:dlc, you'll find lots of records touched by LC that include the word usages in 670. One important thing Paul Frank told me is not to worry so much about 670 fields: the important thing is to make sure the information justified in a clear manner. All you need to know is make sure your colleagues looking at your record will understand what you mean. In this case, if one write usage or usages, catalogers will understand. One thing I was thought at some point is that usage in 670 should not be all the names a person used. It should be the predominant form of name. Some people disagree with this. Personally, if I can really figure out a name is used more than another, I record in 670: predominant usage: ...; other usage:... I think people understand what I mean and it helps justify the form of name I use as the basis of an authorized access point. Cheers, Dominique From: YUL-NACO > On Behalf Of Bychowski, Brenna Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 12:09 PM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers > Subject: Re: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Hi Wheat, Personally, I've only used "usage." Even though neither the NACO Participants' Manual nor DCM Z1 gives an example that has multiple forms of name, they both call for "usage" (singular), and that's what I've been following. Best, Brenna From: YUL-NACO > On Behalf Of Meier, Tachtorn Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:59 AM To: Distribution list for YUL NACO catalogers > Subject: [yul-naco] 670 "usage" Dear collective wisdom, I came across this inconsistent usage of the term "usage" in NAF; see below for snapshots from the authority records. Is it a plural or singular form, or either? Best, Wheat [cid:image001.png at 01D9C552.CF2C7E10] [cid:image002.png at 01D9C552.CF2C7E10] [cid:image003.png at 01D9C552.CF2C7E10] [cid:image004.png at 01D9C552.CF2C7E10] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 8643 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 6839 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 9832 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 9542 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From tachtorn.meier at yale.edu Tue Aug 8 14:30:41 2023 From: tachtorn.meier at yale.edu (Meier, Tachtorn) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 18:30:41 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] Upcoming NACO Training Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am pleased to share with you that Dominique Bourassa will be holding four sessions on NACO Training for Corporate Names. The training comprises four 90-minute sessions and will be held on October 10, 12, 17, and 19 at 1:30 pm-3:00 pm. All are welcome, regardless of whether you're new to describing corporate names or looking for a refresher. Register in advance for this training: https://yale.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUpf-irrDgvEtyLp3bDr29kDPz96hTGml__ Best, Wheat & Jia NACO Coordinators -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danijela.matkovic at yale.edu Mon Aug 14 11:57:14 2023 From: danijela.matkovic at yale.edu (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Matkovi=E6=2C_Danijela?=) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 15:57:14 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] FW: Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jia, As administrator of the NACO mailing list, I received an error message indicating that you used the wrong mailing list address to share your message. The correct address is: yul-naco at mailman.yale.edu Best, Danijela -----Original Message----- From: YUL-NACO Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:45 AM To: yul-naco-owner at mailman.yale.edu Subject: Uncaught bounce notification The attached message was received as a bounce, but either the bounce format was not recognized, or no member addresses could be extracted from it. This mailing list has been configured to send all unrecognized bounce messages to the list administrator(s). For more information see: https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/admin/yul-naco/bounce -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Xu, Jia" Subject: FW: [PCCLIST] Postponed "Day One" for non-Latin references in NARs; New Task Group Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 13:44:45 +0000 Size: 34181 URL: From jia.xu at yale.edu Wed Aug 16 09:21:24 2023 From: jia.xu at yale.edu (Xu, Jia) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 13:21:24 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] FW: [PCCLIST] Announcement: NACO MARC21 046: Subfields $q and $r available for use In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am sharing the following announcement from PTCP of LC. MARC field 046 subfields $q (establishment date) and $r (termination date) are now valid for use in NACO corporate name authority records. Thanks, Jia From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging On Behalf Of Mackenzie, Tricia Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:19 PM To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV Subject: [PCCLIST] Announcement: NACO MARC21 046: Subfields $q and $r available for use Announcement: NACO MARC21 046: Subfields $q and $r available for use MARC field 046 subfields $q (establishment date) and $r (termination date) are now valid for use in NACO corporate name authority records. Existing NACO corporate body records that have establishment date and termination date in subfields $s and $t will not be programmatically updated to use subfields $q and $r. However, when updating an already existing corporate body record, NACO catalogers are encouraged to evaluate the 046 field and manually update the subfields to $q and $r as needed. Note: Subfield $s (start period) and subfield $t (end period) are also valid for use in NACO corporate name authority records in some cases. If subfield $s and subfield $t do not represent establishment date and termination date, do not change the subfield values. NACO documentation will be updated soon to reflect the change in practice. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Tricia Mackenzie (she/her) Cataloging Policy Specialist Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division Library of Congress | tmackenzie at loc.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jia.xu at yale.edu Mon Aug 21 09:00:13 2023 From: jia.xu at yale.edu (Xu, Jia) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:00:13 +0000 Subject: [yul-naco] FW: [PCCLIST] Announcement: Update on the use of the MARC 21 667 for notes regarding URIs in NACO records In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am sharing the following announcement from PTCP of LC. See "Current Practice" on 667 notes regarding URIs in NACO records. "Current Practice: NACO catalogers should no longer add a MARC 21 667 field note in name authority records when adding URIs in the 024, 3XX, or 5XX fields. When updating a NACO record for another reason, catalogers may delete any existing 667 notes about the inclusion of URIs." Thanks! Jia From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging On Behalf Of Mackenzie, Tricia Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 2:57 PM To: PCCLIST at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV Subject: [PCCLIST] Announcement: Update on the use of the MARC 21 667 for notes regarding URIs in NACO records Announcement: Update on the use of the MARC 21 667 for notes regarding URIs in NACO records Background: In 2019, participants in the PCC URIs in MARC Pilot began adding URIs to the MARC 21 Authority 024 field. Later, the pilot was expanded to include 3XX and 5XX fields. As part of the pilot, a 667 note was required. Originally, the 667 note added was: 667 ## $a URIs added to this record for the PCC URI MARC Pilot. Please do not remove or edit the URIs. Eventually, the requirement to add the 667 note for URIs in the 024 was discontinued, but a 667 note was still required when adding URIs to 3XX and/or 5XX fields: 667 ## $a URIs added to 3XX and/or 5XX fields in this record for the PCC URI MARC Pilot. Please do not remove or edit these URIs. One of the outcomes of the subgroup was the creation of best practice guidelines for using the 024 field in NACO records. Current Practice: NACO catalogers should no longer add a MARC 21 667 field note in name authority records when adding URIs in the 024, 3XX, or 5XX fields. When updating a NACO record for another reason, catalogers may delete any existing 667 notes about the inclusion of URIs. Catalogers are free to edit $0s and $1s in MARC authority fields if they contain errors that need to be corrected. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Tricia Mackenzie Librarian Cataloging Policy Specialist Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division Library of Congress | tmackenzie at loc.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: