Importance of Fully Supported Proposals
Source citations in proposals for new and revised subject headings serve two purposes: to allow for vetting of the proposal during the editorial review process, and to provide a permanent reference for future consultation.
It is important to include information that supports every aspect of a proposal, including the form of heading and any qualifier, UFs based on usage, the BTs and RTs, and the scope note. This support is typically provided by quoting or paraphrasing passages from the work being cataloged and the reference sources that were consulted. In some cases, though, it may take the form of a cataloger-supplied summary. Further, since the language of the vocabulary is English, information (other than the titles of foreign-language works) should be provided in English when possible.
Provision of full information from the work being cataloged and the reference sources that were consulted allows for much more expeditious review by the policy specialists. It also assists catalogers at LC and in SACO institutions, all of whom are strongly encouraged to review the Tentative Lists and provide feedback on the proposals.
The authority record also serves as a permanent record of the rationale for proposing the heading. Catalogers use the source citations of approved headings to understand what the headings mean and how they should be used. Catalogers also use the citations to assist them when considering whether to propose another heading.
Citation of an “LC pattern” in a 952 field is not a substitute for source information provided in the 670 fields. Source citations provide intellectual support for the need for the heading and references, while the LC pattern justifies the form of heading and references.
The editorial meeting has always marked some incomplete proposals as “resubmit” and sent them back to the proposing catalogers for additional work. Formerly, policy specialists would complete some of the proposals themselves, or take certain things on faith and approve them. In the current era of diminished resources and increasing workloads, however, the policy specialists are unable to complete the proposals, and providing incomplete information for consultation is a disservice to current and future catalogers. The meeting therefore requests that catalogers consult H 202 and H 203 to ensure that they submit complete proposals.
Summary of Substantial Revisions
CONNECT