Thank you, David, for this summary of the issues. Speaking again
from personal opinion (although, as Mark Scharff has pointed out,
everyone can see where I work), I endorse your statement quoted
I might add that not all libraries have loaded their name authority
records into their online catalog, and some might balk at others'
decisions as to what information is useful to repeat for the purpose of
making it available to library users. Since the rewriting of MARC21
guidelines and NACO principles might prove daunting, it is
important to address these issues through the proper channels.
A MARBI proposal might be one avenue. A proposal for a Z1 revision
might be another. Perhaps the BIBCO Operations Committee?
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (609) 258-3251
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, David W Reser wrote:
> Most likely any biographical and historical data recorded found in a
> source would be cited along with the source information in a 670 note,
> Could we come to agreement that the 680
> field is not a replacement for the 670/675, etc., just a field to
> summarize for the public information found in 670/675?
> It's worth recalling that one of the basic tenets of the NACO program
> is to defray the cost of creating useful authority records, and one of
> the goals of the PCC is to streamline and simplify authority
> creation-- would some participants balk at recording the same
> information in more than one place in a record, or find consulting an
> additional set of guidelines for what type of information should be
> recorded publicly or not?