I too second Mary Charles' recommendation that we move toward rules that
will allow all personal NARs to be differentiated. In addition to the
maintenance headaches Mary Charles cites, LC's policy of moving names on
and off undifferentiated NARs as new differentiating information appears,
and in the process of allowing the NAR to fluctuate between differentiated
and undifferentiated status, results in allowing a succession of unique
identities to be authorized under the same NAR with a single LCCN. In
effect this violates the rule against re-using an LCCN to establish a
different entity. In most undifferentiated NARs, the paired 670s make the
distinctions between the different identities represented fairly clear;
it's only the restrictions on allowable qualifiers that prevent the
different identities from being established uniquely.
At 10:33 AM 11/4/2006, you wrote:
>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]
Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head
Technical Services Dept.
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]