Agree with Mary Charles, Amy, and David.
The 'old' British Library catalogue had, in my opinion, the best
solution: in the absence of preferred dates or unique descriptor, the
BL routinely used the helpful, descriptive phrase 'writer on ...' --
based presumably on the often unique book-in-hand. This approach had
advantages: first and foremost, it was helpful to the user, certainly
more helpful than a undifferentiated name, as an undifferentiated name
authority record is no help to the user at all; second, it may also have
been more useful and accurate than the addition of either dates or even
unique descriptors; third, it probably saved a lot of time. It was a
neat solution that described and helped to categorize, but did not
pigeonhole, an individual, and provided a sort of author-title access by
means of name+descriptive phrase.
Celine Noel, Wanda Gunther, and I (all here at UNC) were discussing
problems with undifferentiated NARs last week. It sounds as if some of
you contributing to this thread were listening in.
Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
David M Saah wrote:
>Agree with Mary Charles and Amy. And maybe reintroduce the use of relator terms (subfield 'e': compilers, editors, translators) when you are really in a bind.
>[log in to unmask]
>Ph: (202) 707-3131
>Fax: (202) 252-2082
>>>>[log in to unmask] 11/04/06 12:39 PM >>>
>Mary Charles, I agree 100% that it would be good to move away from
>undifferentiated name records.
>Furthermore, if the cataloging rules would allow an author's field of study
>in the $c, this would serve as a more useful identifier, for both
>catalogers and users, than the additions that are currently authorized.
>Imagine index screens that look like this:
>Turner, David, economist.
>Turner, David, electrical engineer.
>Turner, David, political scientist.
>Rather than this:
>Turner, David, 1945-
>Turner, David, 1947-
>Turner, David, Ph.D.
>As automated authority control improves, retrospective changes to headings
>should become easier and easier. Perhaps the catalogs of the future will
>have headings like:
>Turner, David (architect)
>Turner, David, 1945- (electrical engineer)
>Turner, David, 1947- (political scientist)
>Amy H. Turner
>Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
>Duke University Libraries
>Durham, NC 27708-0190
>[log in to unmask]
> "Lasater, Mary C"
> ANDERBILT.EDU> To
> Sent by: Program [log in to unmask]
> for Cooperative cc
> <[log in to unmask]> Subject
> Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated name
> 11/04/2006 11:33
> Please respond to
> Program for
> <[log in to unmask]>
>You have touched on a topic/problem that I hope we can 'do better'
>under RDA. I would like to see us move toward using those phrases
>that we construct as $c's with the author's name and setting these
>authority records up that way. THEN when we find out more about the
>author, we can change the 'distinct' AR instead of the 'non-unique
>AR if necessary. Several years ago I mentioned in a talk at ALA
>that I spend too much time looking for how these have changed and
>would prefer not to even have the non-unique AR. With a linked
>authority system those changes can be really bad with people
>writing books 100s of years before they were born. If instead of
>constructing non-unique's we created individual AR's with the
>phrases (that we already construct for the non-unique authority
>records) and then changed that AR when we have more info, linked
>authority system changes would automatically change the 'correct'
>authority record, only. Much/all of the time spent looking for the
>changed heading that is no longer on the non-unique (Is this the
>Tom Smith born in 1952, or 53, or is it Tom T. Smith or Tom Smith,
>Ph.D.) would be eliminated.
>Music catalogers already get to add these phrases and we see this
>type of 'qualification' on various web tools. What are the
>disadvantages? Do they outweigh the benefits?
>Mary Charles Lasater
>--On Friday, November 03, 2006 2:21 PM -0800 "Paul J. Weiss"
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I note that the practice of bracketing data in one 670 per person
>>in an undifferentiated name record is not actually given as
>>policy anywhere. The MARC authority format give it as one
>>possibility ("subfield $a may contain a descriptive term for an
>>author enclosed within brackets "). DCM Z1 touches on it in the
>>introduction and at 670. The NACO Participants Manual describes
>>the practice, but our NACO reviewer at LC continues to remind me
>>that the PM does not set policy.
>>Do any of you _not_ follow that practice? If not, what was your
>>thinking behind your decision? Have any of you considered some
>>UCSD NACO Coordinator
>>Paul J. Weiss
>>Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator
>>Metadata Services Department
>>[log in to unmask] _______________________________________
>Mary Charles Lasater
>Email: [log in to unmask]