Everyone,
Over the summer, PoCo has been coming to grips with a number of the
recommendations in the Non-MARC Authorities report. By now, you have
seen my earlier message about Part 2. Earlier this summer, PCC set up a
survey for you to respond to concerning the options presented in Part 1
for breaking up current undifferentiated name clusters. We received
very few responses.
This has prompted me to approach this question in a different way. I'd
like, for now, to separate the question of the breaking up of existing
undifferentiated name clusters and the need for additional options for
adding qualifier(s) to a name to make it unique going forward. Have
any of you been forced to add to an undifferentiated name cluster lately
(or create a new one)? All of the additional implementable options
presented in the report had their drawbacks and the ideal could only be
realized in the future. Perhaps it would be better, if there is no
pressing need, to wait until the preferred option in the report becomes
feasible (Use the unique LCCN identifier alone to differentiate the
persons represented by authorities. 100 fields would no longer have to
be unique, and the LC/NACO Heading Comparison rules would no longer be
needed).
Over the next few weeks, could anyone who has had to create or add to an
undifferentiated name record lately send me an email. I'll be happy to
compile the results. Your help would be much appreciated.
Philip
--
Philip E. Schreur
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)
|