Non-library metadata schemes make far greater use of relator terms than 
we do in AACR2 library-land. These terms do help disambiguate names in 
catalogs (as they do in web browsers where a line or two of text can 
often tell you if it's the right or wrong person). I would rather that 
these terms be in role fields of bib records than in headings, and I 
share Richard's concern about finding a concise, longish-term way of 
stating a person's field.

For an example of role in non-library metadata land, may I suggest 
the "agent" element in VRA Core 4.0 -- 
http://www.vraweb.org/datastandards/VRA_Core4_Element_Description.pdf

Sherman Clarke
NYU Libraries
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Moore, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 6, 2006 8:58 am
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated name records

> I agree in principle, although the problem with recent and current
> writers might be to determine what their field is, and how they will
> subsequently be known.
> 
> Isn't there an Italian cataloguing standard that does precisely this?
> 
> Regards
> Richard 
> 
> _________________________
> 
> Richard Moore 
> Authority Control Team Manager 
> The British Library
> 
> 
> Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                              
> 
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]     
> ______________________________
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David M Saah
> Sent: 06 November 2006 12:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated name records
> 
> 
> 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.
> David
> 
> David Saah
> Coop Team
> [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
> 
> Amy H. Turner
> Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC   27708-0190
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             "Lasater, Mary C"
> 
>             <mary.c.lasater@V
> 
>             ANDERBILT.EDU>
> To 
>             Sent by: Program          [log in to unmask]
> 
>             for Cooperative
> cc 
>             Cataloging
> 
>             <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject 
>                                       Re: [PCCLIST] undifferentiated
> name 
>                                       records
> 
>             11/04/2006 11:33
> 
>             AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>             Please respond to
> 
>                Program for
> 
>                Cooperative
> 
>                Cataloging
> 
>             <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 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
> > other practice?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> > UCSD NACO Coordinator
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________
> > Paul J. Weiss
> > Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator
> > Metadata Services Department
> > UCSD Libraries
> > 858-534-3537
> > [log in to unmask] _______________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Mary Charles Lasater
> Vanderbilt University
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
************************************************************************
**
> 
> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
> 
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a 
> Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
> 
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
> 
> 
************************************************************************
*
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may 
> be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail 
> and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must 
> not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. 
> 
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of 
> the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British 
> Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for 
> the views of the author. 
> 
> 
************************************************************************
*