I agree, but something more is needed to make these differentiations
communicable. When the bib record moves from OCLC to some other system,
it would need to take with it the data that links its heading to a
specific authority, especially if the text of the heading could be found
on multiple authorities. Approved MARBI Proposal 2007-06/1 provides such
a device, defining $0 for the authority record control number (defined
to include the MARC organization code for the number's source). In
effect, the control number becomes the differentiating element in the
bib heading string for collocation purposes as well as the link to the
authority record, and the need to find some other kind of permissible
qualifying term drops away.
Stephen
John Hostage wrote:
> I'm not too concerned with trying to differentiate every heading,
> especially with terms for field of activity, etc. However, it would be
> a great step forward if we stopped creating records for multiple persons
> and created a separate record for each person, even if the heading was
> the same as on another record. Requiring every record to have a unique
> heading is a carry-over from the card days. It shouldn't be a problem
> for controlling headings in OCLC. The cataloger would just have to
> select the correct record when controlling a heading, something they
> have to do already. Then if the heading for that person changed, no
> further work would be required, unlike now, where the persons have to be
> teased apart.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> John Hostage Authorities Librarian
> Langdell Hall [log in to unmask]
> Harvard Law School Library +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> Cambridge, MA 02138 +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
>
>
--
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coordinator/Head, Database Management Section
Technical Services, University Libraries, University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328 / Fax: 612-625-3428
|