On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Mary Mastraccio wrote:
> Providing personal information in authorized forms of a name is an
> issue, because authors complain.
The initial point of complaint, then, since we are talking about theses,
should be with the requirement of a printed vita. If it is not a
requirement but appears by author-choice, then those authors providing
them have no basis for complaint. If they are simply given the
opportunity to provide vita and don't question it, then what do you say?
> One of the concerns is identity theft.
Actually, that remains a speculation until an experiment or example
proves a definite need for concern. We are all given enough things to
fear (and get angry about) everyday. Having to censor a million existing
authority records is not a fear I want to carry around without
justification (not just speculation).
Is there an existing law that could be revised so that we need not always
fear being threatended by lawsuits?
> I'm not too concerned about 670 fields because this is usually not
> available to the public
They are certainly available in the LC file, so perhaps we should jump on
our Governnment (again) to keep the information secret and unobtainable.
We (NACO contributors) could always transfer the liability by saying that
our practices are defined by Government policy (we are essentially working
for LC, albeit without direct compensation).
> and people besides catalogers aren't likely to know to go looking for
> the 6xx details in the authority records
They (and "honest" data salespersons as well) certainly would if there
was any possibility of making money from the 6XX fields. Maybe we need to
make the issue more public so that it happens more quickly-- bolster the
economy, so to speak.
> Perhaps we should consider NOT including mothers name
Can't say I've ever seen one like that (in 30 years). Got an example
where such information is essential to the record?
John G. Marr
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.