Q1.  When is it necessary to provide more than one 670 in an NAR for a personal name heading being newly established which does not conflict with another name in the NAF?

A.  In general for names that do not conflict the only time it is necessary to cite another source beyond the item-in-hand when
establishing a personal name is:

    1.  When the rules for establishing personal names require consultation with a reference source
    (e.g., AACR2 22.1B, 22.3B2, 22.3B3)

    2.  When it is necessary to justify 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 (e.g., during the normal course of searching in the database in which the work is being performed).

    3.  When it is necessary to justify a cross-reference and that information was found in a source other than the          item-in-hand (e.g., during the normal course of searching in the database in which the work is being performed).

    4.  When it is necessary to record 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  (e.g.,     during the normal course of searching in  the database in which the work is being performed).
 

Q2.  When is it necessary to look in other sources (beyond the item-in-hand and the database in which I catalog) for variants, fuller forms of the heading or dates, etc.

A. 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 Q1 when the rules call for consultation with a reference source.
 

Q3.  When do I use the citation "LC in OCLC" or "LC in RLIN"?

A.  PCC NACO trainer's have been encouraged to de-emphasize the use of this citation and have tried to eliminate any reference to this in the examples in the training material 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.
 

Q4.  Should we use the designation PCC in OCLC or PCC in RLIN in a 670 to cite a heading found on a PCC (042=pcc) record?

A.  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.
 

Q5.  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 bib. record)?

A.  No, although some catalogers seem to think so.  This appears to be  hark-back  to the early days of NACO, but as noted in the response to Q3, 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."
 

Q6.  OCLC and RLG have developed programs to "machine assist" the creation of NARs and as a result there is more information in the 670 citations than ever before, how much clean-up is required in this field?

A.  The Z1 (yellow pages) supplement to the MARC 21 format is being revised to take this question into account.  The guidelines will instruct catalogers that "in order to maintain the cost effectiveness of these programs, use judgement" in deciding what information can remain or what should be deleted.
 

--
Ana Cristan
Cooperative Cataloging
Regional and Cooperative Cat. Div.
Library of Congress, LM537
Washington, DC 20540-4382
(202) 707-7921 (fax): (202) 707-2824
e-mail: acri@loc.gov

Search Dates

Dates of searches should be given in the format "Sept. 1,  1997"  format  instead of  "9-1-97" or  the like.
The change is  to accommodate our British  colleagues, who interpret dates like "9-1-97" as "Jan. 9, 1997"  instead
of "Sept. 1, 1997".