REPORT OF THE CCC TASK GROUP ON THE 670 FIELD IN NAME AND SERIES AUTHORITY RECORDS

The Cooperative Cataloging Council established the Task Group on the 670 Field in Name and Series Authority Records as a response to the identification of the 670 field as needlessly complex during surveys conducted by the council's Task Group on Authorities. The presence in the national authority file of British Library authority records with only title in most 670 fields for works being cataloged adds to the confusion/discussion.

Task Group members were Donna Collins (NAL), Ana Cristán (LC), and Judy Kuhagen, chair (LC). Ron Goudreau (Editor of Subject Headings, LC) participated in Task Group discussions. Winnie Kao (NLM) and Alan Danskin (British Library) reviewed this report.

The charge of the Task Group was as follows:
The Library of Congress should publicize the recent simplifications adopted regarding the 670 field (source found citation) in name and series authority records. Prior to the 1994 ALA Annual Conference, the Task Group will prepare a document identifying the minimal elements for the 670 field, proposing further simplifications if possible, listing various uses of this field by general and special interest groups, and exploring the use of automation to generate this field from bibliographic records.

The Task Group posted an announcement [see Appendix A] of the 1993 670 simplifications on AUTOCAT, COOPCAT, and SERIALST. It also appeared in LC Cataloging Newsline. The announcement will appear in Cataloging Service Bulletin and Cooperative Cataloging News. It is also being forwarded to the FEDLINK, OCLC, and RLIN newsletters.

Additionally, the Task Group posted a questionnaire [see Appendix B] on AUTOCAT, COOPCAT, and SERIALST asking for responses from libraries having programs or systems generating authority records from bibliographic records. Although we received responses from only 14 libraries, we know many more libraries use automation in some way to create authority heading lists/records. A summary of the responses in given in Appendix C. Of those libraries responding, the program developed by Gary Strawn at Northwestern University is the most advanced.

LC has a Text Capture and Electronic Conversion program which is being used for the cataloging of online CIP electronic texts. Another use being explored is the generation of a name authority record (so far a 1XX and 670) from the bibliographic record. OCLC also has a system, developed for its Harvard retrospective conversion project, to generate name authority records from bibliographic records.

670 Field and Its Uses

The 670 field can be viewed as a footnote, substantiating the established form of name or title in the 1XX field. A 1XX heading does not exist in a vacuum; it exists within the context identified by the 670 field for the source used to authorize the preferred form chosen. The presence of this source information confirms authority work and is a distinguishing feature of an authority file as opposed to a headings list; the latter cannot be used by itself because not enough information is present.

Based on our own experience and conversations with others creating and/or consulting authority records, as well as on recent correspondence received by the Task Group, we can describe in a general way the varied uses of the 670 field by general and special interest groups. Some are "merely" concerned about having enough information in the 670 to confirm that the person or body or series represented by the record is the same as the person/body/series in the item in hand. Others want that information plus enough history for corporate bodies to identify earlier and later names. Some, especially people working with manuscript or archival material, include multiple 670 fields and give extensive biographical information about a person and her/his family and extensive historical information about corporate bodies; thus, the authority records themselves become resources for individuals seeking information on these persons or bodies. Individuals working with other kinds of special collections often have very specific information to record.

The ongoing specific functions of the 670 field can be enumerated as follows:

1. To supply information, from bibliographic and at times non-bibliographic sources (e.g., phone calls, letters), in support of the choice and form of heading.
2. To store information that may be used to break a conflict later.
3. To identify a person with a particular work or as an author in a particular discipline or time period. (Example: Is the John Smith who wrote the book about spiders that I have before me to catalog, the same as the already-established John Smith with birthdate 1953 in heading, who wrote about butterflies or the already-established John Smith with birthdate 1945, in heading who wrote about computers?)
4. To identify separate individuals whose access points must remain identical for now (i.e., undifferentiated personal name heading).
5. To clarify whether different forms of a body's name or of a title are simply variations or reflect a change in the name or title and to identify relationships with other headings.
6. To record research required by the current rules (e.g., AACR2 22.1B).
7. To facilitate authority and bibliographic file maintenance, i.e., the information in 670 fields aids in making decisions about duplicate headings and misattributions.

Recently, the 670 field has been serving a new and exciting purpose: to support machine manipulation based on algorithms using information in the 670. One example of such use is a research project just begun by OCLC and Ohio State University, eventually to involve other universities. Per Karen Calhoun's eMail message of May 25, 1994, "... the automated authority control software [at OCLC] for personal names ... uses titles cited in selected 670 fields to associate authority records with appropriate bibliographic records. Next the software extracts attributes (such as when the author published, languages of publications, subjects of publications, etc.) to enrich the authority record. This process makes it possible for the software to then identify and link widely varying forms of name for the same author together. An abandonment of the 670 field would have a serious negative impact on automated authority control of this kind."

Although the 670 field can serve many functions, in the vast majority of cases in the national authority file the 670 field representing the work being cataloged is the only 670 field that needs to be recorded or will ever be recorded. Proportionately, other 670 fields representing research are not needed/required often.

However, as implied in K. Calhoun's message, there have been proposals to omit the 670 field. Some people have questioned whether the 670 field for the work being cataloged is needed in every record since the information can be found by a search of the bibliographic file under the appropriate heading. One frequent suggestion by respondents to the LC Series Group's report was to omit the 670 field. Some respondents to the CCC Task Group's questionnaire on automation replied that 670 fields were not generated and were not missed, either because their authority records were tied to their bibliographic records or they could always search the heading in their own bibliographic file, if more information was needed. However, one library, in response to the question whether lack of a 670 field caused problems later for identification or conflict resolution, said lack of 670 field caused problems "... dozens of times every day for authority and cataloging staff."

Some of those same respondents as well as other individuals who contacted the Task Group said the 670 field had to be included in authority records in a shared database. A shared database is or will be too large to search the bibliographic file for such 670-type information; for the John Smith example noted above, one would have to look at all the bibliographic records of all the John Smiths to determine which John Smith heading to use. Also, not all bibliographic records causing authority records to be made and placed in a shared database are in that database. Comments were received from catalogers inside and outside LC saying it takes less time to input a 670 field than to resolve problems later. Also, if automation can create 670 fields without human intervention, whether to omit those fields becomes a moot question.

670 Practice in British Library and National Library of Canada

Current British Library name authority records contain 670 fields. The 670 includes the title of the work cataloged, but not the date of publication. If any additional information has been found, the 670 includes a source for that information and the data. Data in the heading is not repeated in the 670 field. At times, the British Library can only cite the institution from which the data was received instead of providing specific source data. The institutions, either one of the London directorates of the British Library or one of the United Kingdom Copyright Libraries, are not required to cite source data for the authority file.

National Library of Canada 670 fields for the work being cataloged also have only the title and not the imprint date. The form of name from the source is not repeated if it is the same as the form in the heading. Information from reference sources not identical to the heading are given in subfield a because CANMARC has not defined subfield b. The terms "Date," "Dates," and "Death Date" are used in the 670 field instead of repeating exact dates found in the heading.

Recommendations

After considering the comments received on this matter, the Task Group recommends the following:

1. A 670 field for the work being cataloged should be included in name and series authority records, especially if those records are going to reside in a shared database. Other 670 fields could be added as needed or desired by users of those authority records.
2. The minimal elements of such a 670 field in a name authority record in a shared database would be the title and publication date of the work being cataloged, recorded in subfield a. The publication date is important for identifying the time period of the person or corporate body, especially in a large file. If the title is so generic it could not be identified by only title, main entry would also be given. Information in subfield b (location of name or title, usage, data about author, etc.) could be given according to each library's own policy or as the complexity of a situation calls for such information.

Simplification Proposals

The Task Group submits the following proposals to Library of Congress for name authority records made/modified by its catalogers as well as by NACO/NCCP participants. These proposals are worded to describe the minimal amount of information required; however, a general statement should be included in documentation to say the former range of possibilities for more information is still an option since some libraries or individuals may want to continue the current practice. It is understood that any proposals considered by LC would be distributed to its cataloging staff and NACO/NCCP participants via draft copies of revised documentation for comment.

1. In authority records for persons and bodies when no references are needed or references given need no justification, give only a 670 subfield a if the personal or corporate body name was found on the chief source of information in the work being cataloged. If the personal or corporate body name was found on a source other than the chief source of information, in the 670 give both subfield a and subfield b (source and usage).

   100 Jones, Mary S.
   670 Vegetarian cooking for today, 1992
   [only form in book was form Mary S. Jones on the title page]

   100 National Organization for Encouraging Work at Home
   670 An office in your home, 1993: cover (National Organization for Encouraging Work at Home)
   [body's name didn't appear on title page]

   [This proposal is based on (1) "Lotka's Law:" 60% of authors only write once; and (2) findings reported by Donna Collins (NAL) and Winnie Kao (NLM) in an Aug. 29, 1991 letter to Henriette Avram, Associate Librarian for Collections Services, LC: "... findings in recent studies that have determined that over 80 percent of personal names appear in only one form of transcription, and that AACR2 rules require the cataloger to transcribe name access points as they are found in the item being cataloged. ... Although corporate and meetings names were not included in these studies, AACR2 requirements in transcribing these names in the descriptive records are the same..."]

2. In the 670 for the work being cataloged, give all variants and other information (e.g., degrees, affiliations, dates, history, hierarchy, location) in one set of parentheses with no location information and with different kinds of information separated by semicolons.

   100 Edwards, Ronald
   670 Career choices in zoology, 1990 (R.O. Edwards; Dept. of Biology, Iowa State University)
   [form Ronald Edwards on title page; form R.O. Edwards on cover]

   110 International ABC Society
   670 Calligraphy sampler, 1994 (name changed in 1994 from International Alphabet Society)

3. When the 670 field is for a source other than the work being cataloged (e.g., NLC, reference books, phone calls, databases), in the usage statement in subfield b give only the piece of information unique to that source: birthdate, middle name, spelled out forms of forename initials, etc.

   670 Who's who in America (b. 1932)

4. Do not give a subfield b in an NLC 670 citation if the NLC information consists of only the form of heading and references.

5. Do not give date in subfield a of a 670 for a phone call or database search if the call/search was made at time of establishing the heading.

   100 Swanson, L. (Linda)
   670 Favorite children's poems, 1989
   670 Phone call to publisher (Linda)
   [spelled-out form of forename needed to break conflict when establishing heading]

6. Consider always using the 670 field instead of 675 field for all pertinent information about earlier and later names of the corporate body named in the heading, even if the sources don't include the name of the corporate body in the heading. In effect, re-define 670 field as field where any pertinent information was found. Redefine 675 field as field for reference sources lacking expected information. [Many comments were received concerning the confusion of when to put earlier or later information in a 670 field and when to put it in a 675 field.]

7. Stress that style and punctuation within the 670 field generally do not have to follow specific guidelines and do not even have to be consistent from record to record as long as the information is clear. Instruct catalogers to use judgment and common sense. [Many respondents who confirmed the need for 670 fields did say increased flexibility in recording the information in 670 fields was desirable.]

   The Task Group considered making some of the same proposals above for series authority records so that name and series authority records wouldn't have different conventions. However, a series authority record is different from a name authority record in two important ways: (1) a series authority record is tied to only one specific bibliographic entity; and (2) the priority order of sources for a serial title-page substitute in AACR2 12.0B1 (and therefore in 2.0B2 for the series area) and the fact that series publishers often "rotate" the variant title forms from one volume to the next combine to make it important to know the source locations of the form used in the heading and any variant forms. The Task Group knew the CCC Series Authority Record Task Group would be distributing a questionnaire asking about all the fields in series authority records and so decided not to make any simplification proposals for the 670 field in series authority records now.

APPENDIX A: Past 670 Simplifications

[posted on AUTOCAT, COOPCAT, and SERIALST]

Notice from CCC Task Group on the 670 Field in Name and Series

Authority Records:

In the recent surveys conducted by the Cooperative Cataloging Council's Task Group on Authorities addressing the issue of barriers to cooperation, one of the elements in authority records many people identified as needlessly complex was the "Sources found" or 670 field. The recent addition of British Library records, with their abbreviated 670 fields, to the LC name authority file heightened the discussion at Library of Congress and in the cooperative cataloging community.

One task given to the CCC 670 group was rebroadcasting the recent changes to the 670 field. These changes were announced through the Library of Congress Descriptive Cataloging Manual document Z1 (referred to as the "yellow pages") when the document was updated and reformulated for use with the USMARC Authority Format.

In an effort to minimize the amount of time spent creating the 670 field, the following changes were instituted in March 1993:

1. Citing the main entry for the work being cataloged is no longer required.
2. Giving the general material designation (GMD) is no longer required.

However, we feel the real change is the movement to allow catalogers greater freedom to use judgment and common sense in construction of this field. NACO reviewers now allow NACO participants more flexibility in regard to details of 670 construction, style, fullness, and punctuation. In current NACO training, LC emphasizes the fact that punctuation and style used in 670s represent a set of conventions understood by all catalogers. These conventions may be ignored as long as information supplied is clearly identified.

The task group is currently conducting a survey on various lists asking for more input from the cataloging community to determine whether libraries using automation to generate authority heading lists or authority records from bibliographic records include or omit 670 fields. Results of this survey will add information to the discussion of further simplification or elimination of the 670 field.

The task group will issue its report for ALA Annual Conference, summarizing uses of the 670 field by various constituencies, incorporating findings of the survey, and including recommendations to LC about additional simplification (even omission) of the field if possible.

Please send any comments to CPSO@mail.loc.gov

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire

[posted on AUTOCAT, COOPCAT, and SERIALST]

The Cooperative Cataloging Council Task Group on 670 Field in Name and Series Authority Records is interested in knowing which libraries have software programs to generate authority records from bibliographic records or which libraries' OPACs generate authority records from bibliographic records. If your library has either, the group would appreciate a brief response to the questions below by May 26.

Please DO NOT SEND your response to this list --- send your response to cpso@mail.loc.gov.

Thanks, Donna Collins (NAL), Ana Cristán (LC), and Judy Kuhagen (LC)

1. Does your program or OPAC generate authority records only for name headings? Only for series headings? For both?
2. Is the authority record created at the time of cataloging or as a post-cataloging activity?
3. Is a 670 field created?
   1. If "yes," what elements are given in the 670 field?
   2. If "no," how often has the lack of a 670 field caused problems later for identification or conflict resolution?
4. If information is readily available, how many authority records are created each year?
5. What program do you use?
6. Your name and phone number:

*** Last Update 8/5/94 (ADP) ***