Stephen,
That is what some systems do -- separate records when needed for the
authorized forms in the different language files.
MARC users have had long discussions of these issues in the past. The
basic authority file model has been that the authorized form is unique
within an authority file -- the file against which it was created. The
variants (refs) may be the same as a reference to another authorized form,
although they cannot be the same as an authorized form in the same file.
MARC long ago established a set of fields in which the authorized form from
another authority file might be added to a record, marked as such. How
systems were to treat these forms, as sees (related) or see alsos
(variants) -- or something else special -- was not really predetermined. A
system could choose.
In more recent discussion for expanding the capability to have multiple
"authorized forms" in one record the concept of the "context" for a form
was suggested, because it was recognized that there are many factors other
than language that define the structure of an authorized form -- cataloging
rules, language, transliteration, catalog users, and the particular file --
but that mixing the references together for each to make a "mudball" record
might not be so useful.
When MADS was developed, the additional authorized forms that are possible
in MARC were mapped to related references. The file to which they belong
can be designated in an authority attribute, which is a like marking
context since a file has a defined context. ( I am not going to go into
the "but mine should not be 2nd class" business here as a library can move
any form they want to the "top" position.)
But also MADS does not preclude having multiple authorized forms if that is
the way you see the world. An Authority attribute (context) for each can
be marked. This is less consistant with current practices in the library
community, however.
Now this does not address Bruce's issue as he is not interested in the
authorized form concept. MADS is flexible enough that he should be able to
do what he needs, but if good collocation is useful to his applications, he
might want to look into authorized forms, constructing the headings by his
own rules. The apparent complexity of rules used by librarians is partly
due to the size of their files. 30 years ago LC has over 100 Hans
Meuller's in its catalog -- all different people I hate to think how many
we have now. At that time adding information to a name in a systematic way
to distinguish them was useful. Perhaps we will find other routes to the
same end, as you have suggested, in the future.
Sally
At 11:48 AM 9/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>It seems clear from Rebecca's fourth point that the MADS record is intended
>to have an authorizing function--i.e., it makes an essential distinction
>between an authorized <name> form and variants, which go into <ref> tags.
>The whole point is to label the two forms as functionally distinct, not
>equivalent. The fact that different users or different systems may prefer
>different forms of names has led librarians to model methods to link
>between separate authority files, so that the French or Japanese authorized
>name form for an identified entity in a French or Japanese authority file
>can be found from the English authority record in its file, which in turn
>is linked to bib records to which that entity is related.
>
>So, from the perspective of the AACR/MARC model that underlies MODS/MADS
>and current library thinking and as an alternative to Rebecca's point 5,
>developers who want to be able to switch between forms of name for
>presentation could be considering having multiple MADS files, one for each
>authorized <name> form needed, with each MADS record having its appropriate
>array of <ref> variants (e.g., a kana variant for the kanji in Japanese)
>and with all MADS records for the same entity linked together some way or
>other.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>****************************************************
>Stephen Hearn
>Authority Control Coordinator
>Database Management Section Head
>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]
>
********************************************************
Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and
MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540 USA
[log in to unmask] (Fax: 1-202-707 0115) (Voice: 1-202-707 5119)
********************************************************
|