RDA is completely compatible with this practice. It is only NACO policy
that stands in the way.
If you are referring to the RDA element Undifferentiated Name Indicator,
the definition does not imply that there is a single record that
represents more than one person; it could equally be used in separate
records that "the core elements recorded [in each] are insufficient to
differentiate between two or more persons with the same name."
On 10/27/2010 3:52 PM, John Hostage wrote:
> I completely agree. Now, if we only knew someone who could influence
> the JSC to move RDA (and LC/NACO practice) in that direction. :)
> 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)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I agree. In the context of the web, what differentiates any entity is
>> its unique resource identifier. We should stop creating
>> undifferentiated name records and start establishing separate records
>> for each person or identity. We can then clearly record all the
>> information about each person in a clear and unambiguous way. We
>> even have to worry about whether the text string that we use as an
>> access point is unique; the identifier will keep the identities
>> -- and if we need something textual to differentiate in a display, we
>> have all the data elements associated with the person to choose from
>> (and by "we" I don't necessarily mean that a cataloger needs to make
>> that decision; intelligent machines are good at this sort of thing).
>> I've been arguing for this change of approach ever since I understood
>> that the FRBR entity PERSON is not defined solely by the name of the
>> person and that our authority records should be less about controlling
>> the form of name and more about recording information about the person
>> (name usage being only one such piece of information).