Library of Congress

Program for Cooperative Cataloging

The Library of Congress > Cataloging, Acquisitions > PCC > NACO > Cataloging FAQs > FAQs on creating NARs

See also: Other FAQs

  1. Are authorized access points based on CIP information eligible for change if usage differs on the final publication?
  2. Do I need to obtain verification from Library and Archives Canada (LAC) when creating NACO records for Canadian persons and corporate bodies?
  3. May access points found in CIP information from national libraries (e.g., Australia, Brazil) be used as the authorized form?
  4. Is the National Union Catalog (NUC) considered authoritative in a case of conflicting dates?
  5. When a NACO cataloger finds an error on a NAR in the LC/NAF, should the error be reported to the library that created it for correction?
  6. Should NACO catalogers wait for LC to give the go ahead before implementing rule changes, etc.?
  1. Are authorized access points based on CIP information eligible for change if usage differs on the final publication?

    All authorized access points in the LC/NACO Authority File (LC/NAF) are eligible to be changed by LC/NACO participants (within the parameters stated in RDA, the LC-PCC Policy Statements, and DCM Z1). When an authorized access point is found to be inaccurate regardless of the source of information, it may and should be changed (e.g., when a name or date is incorrect).

    Authorized access points based on information provided by a CIP t.p. or galley have a higher frequency of change because the published resource often has a different form of usage. If the usage on the preferred source of the published resource differs from that on the CIP t.p. or galley, the record should be updated as needed to reflect the difference:

    Original:
    100 1# $a King, M. R. $q (Michael R.)
    670 ## $a … $b ECIP t.p. (M.R. King; Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University) galley (Michael R. King)

    Revised:
    100 1# $a King, Michael R.
    400 1# $a King, M. R. $q (Michael R.) $w nne
    670 ## $a … $b ECIP t.p. (M.R. King; Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University) galley (Michael R. King) book t.p. (Michael R. King)

    If the usage in the published resource remains the same but additional information, such as dates or a fuller form of name, is found on the published resource, do not change the authorized access point. Simply update the 670 field with the additional information.

  2. 2. Do I need to obtain verification from Library and Archives Canada (LAC) when creating NACO records for Canadian persons and corporate bodies?

    No, this requirement was discontinued as of March 31, 2013.
  1. May access points found in CIP information from national libraries (e.g., Australia, Brazil) be used as the authorized form?

  2. Access points found in CIP information from national libraries may be used as the authorized form as long as they are fully compatible with current policies and practices in RDA, the LC-PCC PSs, and DCM Z1.

    Many national libraries use RDA but they may not apply the LC-PCC PSs or the LC-PCC guidance found in DCM Z1 in formulating their access points. Thus, it is important to examine these access points carefully before deciding whether or not it is appropriate to use them in NACO records exactly as given.

    Information such as birth dates, fuller forms of name, etc., found in CIP information may be used in NACO records (in formulating access points and/or recording as separate elements) as long as inclusion of the information is otherwise in accordance with NACO policies.
  1. Is the National Union Catalog (NUC) considered authoritative in a case of conflicting dates?

  2. Information found in the printed NUC should be considered as authoritative as that found in any other reference source. Use judgment when faced with conflicting date information or consult additional reference sources as available.
  1. When a NACO cataloger finds an error on a NAR in the LC/NAF, should the error be reported to the library that created it for correction?

  2. That depends. Generally, in the interest of timeliness and the spirit of cooperation, it is expected that if a cataloger finds an error in an authority record s/he is responsible for fixing the error(s) and reporting BFM as needed. If the error is a repeated error and shows a pattern of misunderstanding of an instruction or “best practice” or is complex and may require extensive research, etc., in order to resolve, the NACO liaison may contact the liaison at the library listed in the 040 $c or $d of the NAR. Note that a listing of NACO liaisons by institution is available on the NACO website.

  1. Should NACO catalogers wait for LC to give the go ahead before implementing rule changes, etc.?

  2. Yes. The Policy and Standards Division (PSD) at LC will post notices to the LC Cataloging and Acquisitions website with information on changes in documentation, practices, and policies that affect the NACO Program. Notices will also be disseminated via the PCCLIST informing NACO participants of when to implement changes, etc.

    A parameter of the NACO program is that participants will adhere to RDA, the LC-PCC Policy Statements, and DCM Z1 when contributing authority records to the shared LC/NAF. It is important to have all the documentation in synch so that an orderly implementation can take place. It is not acceptable to begin implementation of a rule change before the published text is available for all to use.

Back to Top

Last Update: August 30, 2017

Send comments to: [email protected]