|
As chair of the group that the BIBFRAME Authorities white paper, I can assure you that the Advisory Committee on Initiatives far preferred the first option, in which everyone would be working in a single file. The second option was merely a fall-back measure, in the event that the "NACO-lite" proposal got rejected.
In support of a new level of participation, the Authorities format is already equipped with these two values in Leader/17:
17 - Encoding level
n - Complete authority record
o - Incomplete authority record
In order to support linked data, we are going to need a lot of help getting identifiers established. Think of all the access points in bibliographic records not now covered in an authority file, as well as the corporate bodies needed for institutional affiliations in 373 fields of personal NARs.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Strategic Topic: Broader participation in authority creation
On the first recommendation, which I could support, I think one might want members who could just contribute certain kinds of names (perhaps just personal names, for example), or "simple" names (although how to do define that I'm not sure). I think the second one is problematic. Making catalogers check two separate authority files is not very efficient, and is bound to create duplication of names. And how would those non-NACO members be trained to be sure they understand NACO guidelines and RDA? I see the second recommendation as very problematic.
Adam
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Beth Picknally Camden wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:33:29 -0400
> From: Beth Picknally Camden <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCTG1] Strategic Topic: Broader participation in authority
> creation
>
> Everyone:
>
> It's time for one last strategic theme for discussion. I would like us to
> look at Recommendation 3 for the ACI report: "Significantly expand the
> ranks of those who can create
> identifiers/contribute authority data". They propose two ways of expanding:
>
> * Expand NACO participation with a "NACO lite" level of participation
> * Endorse the creation of a separate, parallel authority file to which
> non-NACO members could make contributions
>
> What are the pros/cons of these options? Should we do both, or neither?
> Other thoughts on this recommendations?
>
> -Beth
>
> --
> ********************************************************
> Beth Picknally Camden
> Goldstein Director of Information Processing University of
> Pennsylvania Libraries
> 215-746-4149 [log in to unmask]
> http://bpcamden.wordpress.com/
>
> "You must be the change you wish to see in the world".
> --Mahatma Gandhi
> *********************************************************
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
