I wondered whether the primary use for MADS might not be in relation to a
particular file of bibliographic objects. In that case, I would think
"authority=local" might be a better label, since there'd be no necessary
commitment to consistency with an external authority file like NAF. If some
of the display names derived from the MADS records happen to match NAF
forms, that might better be regarded as coincidence than authorization by NAF.

Thinking about what Roy Tennant said about changed circumstances, the major
difference I see between the online environment and the environment that
drove the development of the rules underlying the LC authority files is
that the former favors term searching and the latter generates structured
heading strings for browsable lists. If we don't care about browsable lists
anymore, then we don't need carefully structured heading strings. I can
imaging a file of MADS records which would generate responses to a search
of discrete elements associated with an author. Multiple MADS records might
have identical "headings" or display forms, but contain enough additional
information in the MADS record to distinguish each author. By linking bib
record name elements to the correct MADS records, one could have retrieval
by individual authors without having individuated author headings. Is that
sufficient? Or must MADS also be able to generate a unique browsable
"authorized" heading string and browsable "see" and "see also" reference
strings for each entity or concept it represents?

Stephen

At 04:31 PM 6/10/2004, you wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 11:05, Stephen Hearn wrote:
> > Should including a source of
> > authority be mandated?
>
>I suspect that while we librarians are thinking "authority" some others
>are really looking for a way to move names out of bibliographic records
>into a Names file. So there may be no source of authority other than
>"this is the form I use in my file." As we know, that has some value for
>personal names, for which there is some repetition (in spite of the fact
>that the vast majority of book authors only write one book), but it
>could have much more value for subjects and geographic names, for which
>we can expect more repetition in a single database.
>
>
> >
> > Alternatively, why not permit multiple authorized and unauthorized forms,
> > drop the <refs> tag as Bruce suggested, and use the record as a device to
> > offer the user an expanded searching vocabulary rather than a single
> > authorized form for a given entity or concept?
>
>Doesn't this cause problems if you are also using the MADS records to
>drive display? In that case, a single authoritative heading means that
>you can link to the MADS record and know that your display will make use
>of whatever is in the <authority> group. Otherwise you either have to
>keep a display form in the record or you have to xlink to an individual
>heading.
>
>--
>-------------------------------------
>Karen Coyle
>Digital Library Specialist
>http://www.kcoyle.net
>Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
>--------------------------------------

****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coordinator
Projects, Data and Sciences Team Leader
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328
309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428
Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [log in to unmask]